Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
Duncan Sinclair, who lives in Ontario, held an American Express credit card in Canada that came with a concierge and travel service. He used it to organize a European trip for his family. In Venice, he booked a water taxi from the airport to the hotel through the same service, and a third-party provider made the arrangements. The water taxi crashed into a wooden structure with the family aboard, and Mr. Sinclair was seriously injured. He and his spouse sued in Ontario for negligence and vicarious liability, naming the Canadian card company and several others, including three Italian companies. The Italian companies argued that Ontario courts had no jurisdiction. The motion judge kept the case in Ontario, the Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously reversed, and the Sinclairs appealed.
What the Court Decided
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Justice Côté wrote for the majority, with the Chief Justice and Justices Rowe, O'Bonsawin and Moreau agreeing; Justice Jamal dissented, joined by Justices Karakatsanis, Martin and Kasirer. Applying the Van Breda framework, the majority accepted that the cardmember agreement was an Ontario contract connected to the dispute, which is a presumptive reason for an Ontario court to take jurisdiction. It then held that the presumption was rebutted. The link between Ontario and a crash in Italy involving Italian operators was weak, the Italian companies were not parties to the Ontario contract and had no reason to expect to be sued in Ontario, and taking jurisdiction would amount to overreach. The Court stressed that jurisdiction must be assessed defendant by defendant; one defendant's Ontario ties cannot be used to pull in the others, and several weak connections cannot be added together. The dissent would have found the presumption not rebutted, in part to keep closely related claims together. The ruling concerned the Italian defendants, not the claims against the Canadian defendants.
Canadians who are hurt on holiday often hope to sue at home, where the law and the courts are familiar. This decision narrows that option. A booking made in Ontario does not by itself allow an Ontario court to hear a claim against foreign operators who had nothing to do with the contract. For people injured abroad, it means the claim against the local operator may need to be brought where the injury occurred, and foreign limitation periods and procedures may apply. It also shows how much the closeness of each defendant's connection to Ontario matters.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You were injured on a trip abroad that you booked through a Canadian travel agent, tour company or credit card service.
- ✓You are considering suing a foreign hotel, tour operator or transport company in an Ontario court.
- ✓You were hurt abroad and a foreign operator is arguing that Ontario courts cannot hear the claim.
Key Takeaways
- An Ontario contract can create a presumed connection for jurisdiction, but a foreign defendant can rebut it if the real connection to Ontario is weak.
- Jurisdiction is assessed separately for each defendant, so ties of one defendant cannot be used against another.
- People injured abroad should get advice early, because the claim against foreign operators may have to be brought in the foreign country, with its own deadlines.