business in a foreign jurisdiction. Since the Web is everywhere,
on the plaintiff’s theory, every hotel in the world that can be
booked through the Web does business everywhere. If the inter-
action between Ms. DeGasperis and the hotel through a Cana-
dian booking website was enough to be “carrying on business”, it
would amount to a form of universal jurisdiction. I point to the
Supreme Court’s statement, at para. 87 of Van Breda:
Carrying on business in the jurisdiction may also be considered an
appropriate connecting factor. But considering it to be one may raise more
difficult issues. Resolving those issues may require some caution in order
to avoid creating what would amount to forms of universal jurisdiction in
respect of tort claims arising out of certain categories of business or com-
mercial activity. Active advertising in the jurisdiction or, for example, the
fact that a Web site can be accessed from the jurisdiction would not suffice
to establish that the defendant is carrying on business there. The notion
of carrying on business requires some form of actual, not only virtual,
presence in the jurisdiction, such as maintaining an office there or regu-
larly visiting the territory of the particular jurisdiction. But the Court has
not been asked in this appeal to decide whether and, if so, when e-trade in
the jurisdiction would amount to a presence in the jurisdiction.
 The evidence is clear that Ms. DeGasperis merely
accessed a website. It is true that the court left the door open to
e-trade, but it strikes me that this is the type of case that the
Supreme Court had in mind when it stated that mere access to a
website is not sufficient to establish that a defendant carries
 Accordingly, I find that the hotel does not carry on business in Ontario.
Was a Contract Connected with the Dispute Made in Ontario?
 Mr. Cohen’s argument that the hotel carries on business
in Ontario is intimately connected to the argument that the contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario. He
argues that by logging into the TD Travel Rewards website, the
plaintiff Ms. DeGasperis made a contract with the hotel in
Ontario. I disagree. My reading of the electronic invoice is that,
at best, the plaintiffs had a contract with TD for TD to make a
booking with the hotel.
 In order for there to be a valid contract, the elements of
offer, acceptance and consideration must be present: G.H.L.
Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada, 6th ed. (Toronto:
 The offer, acceptance and intention all indicate privity of
contract between TD Visa Travel Rewards and the plaintiffs. I
do not see any offer and acceptance between the hotel and the
plaintiffs — I do see it between TD Visa and the plaintiffs. It