Rozsa v Barclays Bank (read 2nd)

Rozsa v Barclays Bank (read 2nd) - ROZSA v. BARCLAYS BANK,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ROZSA v. BARCLAYS BANK, DARIER HENTSCH ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT May 2, 2001 THEN, J.: 1. The moving defendant, Darier Hentsch, seeks leave to appeal to the Divisional Court with respect to the decision of Coo J. to dismiss a motion to stay the action brought against them in Ontario by the plaintiff, Theodore Rozsa, and the cross-claim brought by Barclays Bank which has attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts with respect to the plaintiff's action against Barclays. 2. The facts are sufficiently set out in the endorsement of Coo J. 3. The moving defendant seeks leave to appeal under both branches of Rule 62.02(4). 4. Specifically, Mr. Bredt in his able argument submits that in assessing forum conveniens the decision of Coo J. is in conflict with inter alia Frymer v. Brettschneider (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 60 (C.A.); Volkswagen Canada Inc. v. Auto Hans Frolich Ltd. , [1986] W.W.R. 380 (Alta. C.A.); Crockett v. Society of Lloyd's , [2000] P.E.I. J. No. 54 (QL) (S.C.T.D.); Puschmann v. UBS Bank (Canada) , [2001] O.J. No. 439 (QL) (S.C.J.) in not properly recognizing the legal significance of the choice of jurisdiction (Switzerland) clause in the contract between the plaintiff and the moving defendant. 5. Mr. Bredt also submits that the decision of Coo J. if not clearly wrong is open to serious debate because it has not recognized the significance of the parties "reasonable expectations" as explained by this court in Lemmex [*3] v. Bernard (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 164. (See also: Amchem Products Inc. v. B.C (W.C.B.) , [1993] S.C.R. 897 at 91920. 6. Finally, it is submitted that in the absence of any real connection in the plaintiff's action to Ontario, Coo J. wrongly found that the mere attornment of Barclays Bank to the plaintiff's action was a sufficient link to Ontario especially in view of the expense to the plaintiff of conducting a separate action in Switzerland....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/08/2011 for the course MOS 276 taught by Professor King during the Spring '11 term at UWO.

Page1 / 3

Rozsa v Barclays Bank (read 2nd) - ROZSA v. BARCLAYS BANK,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online