Overview
The question of where a lawsuit should be heard can often be just as contentious as the lawsuit itself. In Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27 ("Sinclair"), the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") clarified the limits of jurisdiction in cross-border personal injury claims.1
The decision narrowed the scope for Canadian courts to hear disputes involving international travel and booking services—especially when the only domestic link is a credit card.
Background and Procedural History
While vacationing with his wife and son in Italy, Mr. Sinclair used his Amex Canada Centurion credit card to book transportation through a concierge service. This included a water taxi in Venice, arranged via a third-party travel service.2
During transit, the water taxi collided with a wooden structure, seriously injuring Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair.3
The two commenced an action in Ontario against Amex Canada, the third-party travel service provider, the water taxi driver, and, of significance here, three Italian companies involved in the transport (the "Italian Defendants").4 The Italian Defendants sought to have the action against them stayed, arguing that it would be an overreach for an Ontario court to assert jurisdiction over them.
At the heart of the matter was a contract. More precisely, whether the Amex Cardmember Agreement (the "Agreement") between Mr. Sinclair and Amex Canada, formed in Ontario, was enough to give Ontario courts authority over the Italian Defendants.
The Ontario Superior Court ("ONSC") ruled it was. The motion judge relied on Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 ("Van Breda"), the seminal case for determining whether a Canadian court has jurisdiction based on the strength of the forum's connection to the dispute.5 The ONSC concluded that the Agreement was sufficiently connected to the dispute to anchor Ontario's jurisdiction over the Italian Defendants.
The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the ONSC's decision, and the SCC, in a narrow 5-4 split, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's ruling.
The SCC's Reasoning
Writing for the majority, Justice Côté emphasized that assumptions of jurisdiction must rest on a "real and substantial connection" between the forum and the dispute.6 A mere credit card agreement, even one signed in Ontario, does not necessarily meet that threshold.
The analysis hinged on the fourth presumptive connecting factor from Van Breda: whether a contract with a real and substantial connection to the dispute was made in the province.7 The SCC accepted that the Agreement was formed in Ontario but found that its connection to the injury in Venice was too weak to support jurisdiction. In the words of Côté J., the link was "very tenuous, if not entirely non-existent."8 The majority warned against "jurisdictional overreach" that would disregard the principles of order and fairness.9
Multiple contracts had been referenced to support jurisdiction beyond the one between Mr. Sinclair and Amex Canada, including an arrangement between Amex Canada and a third-party travel provider, as well as the water taxi booking itself. The majority cautioned courts against relying on a vague interpretation of a "constellation of contracts."10 Instead, each contract must be scrutinized individually, and any presumption of jurisdiction can be rebutted by a defendant's demonstration that the contract has only a weak or irrelevant connection to the dispute.11
The Dissent
A strong dissent led by Justice Jamal wrote that they would have upheld the ONSC's decision.12 From the Canadian-issued credit card to the Ontario-based service providers and regulatory framework, the dissent saw the dispute as firmly rooted in Canada, making Ontario a natural forum for resolving the matter.13
From a policy perspective, Jamal J. advocated for a more flexible and contemporary approach to jurisdiction. This approach remains alive to the realities of modern cross-border commerce and evolving consumer expectations. In his view, refusing jurisdiction in such circumstances risks insulating foreign defendants from accountability where Canadian consumers are harmed.
Notably, just one more vote in agreement with the dissent would have tipped the balance and reversed the outcome entirely.
Implications and Future Considerations
Sinclair narrows the grounds on which Canadian courts may assert jurisdiction over international incidents tied to domestic consumer contracts. The SCC sent a clear signal: just because a service is booked through a Canadian credit card or arranged via a familiar Ontario-based concierge does not automatically open the doors of an Ontario courtroom.
For individuals offering or relying on cross-border services, it reinforces the importance of understanding where contracts are formed and how they relate to the underlying dispute.
While Ontario residents may expect to litigate in their home province, this decision confirmed that domestic contractual ties must be meaningfully connected to the facts of the case, not just procedurally convenient.
Footnotes
1. Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27 ["Sinclair"].
2. Ibid at para 4.
3. Ibid at para 3.
4. Ibid at para 6.
5. Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17.
6. Sinclair, supra note 1 at para 1.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid at para 9.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid at para 83.
11. Ibid at para 7.
12. Ibid at para 154.
13. Ibid at paras 154-157.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
