<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jurisdiction &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/jurisdiction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2023 02:26:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-108/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-108</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-108/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2023 22:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6451</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Nasra Esak discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 778938 Ontario Limited v. EllisDon Corporation, 2023 ONCA 182. &#160; OVERVIEW This appeal arose from an unsuccessful motion to stay an Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction over a dispute involving [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-108/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-108/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Happens in Italy, Stays in…? New Appellate Decision Interpreting Van Breda</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-happens-in-italy-stays-in-new-appellate-decision-interpreting-van-breda/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-happens-in-italy-stays-in-new-appellate-decision-interpreting-van-breda</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-happens-in-italy-stays-in-new-appellate-decision-interpreting-van-breda/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2023 22:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6430</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Meryl Rodrigues In the recent decision of Sinclair v. Amex Canada Inc.[i], the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles in the oft-cited jurisdictional decision of Van Breda[ii], and articulated a (perhaps disputable) framework for their application in a given case, following the appeal of three Italian companies from the dismissal of their motion [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-happens-in-italy-stays-in-new-appellate-decision-interpreting-van-breda/">What Happens in Italy, Stays in…? New Appellate Decision Interpreting Van Breda</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/what-happens-in-italy-stays-in-new-appellate-decision-interpreting-van-breda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proper Forum in Interjurisdictional Contract Disputes: Your Court or Mine?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/proper-forum-in-interjurisdictional-contract-disputes-your-court-or-mine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=proper-forum-in-interjurisdictional-contract-disputes-your-court-or-mine</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/proper-forum-in-interjurisdictional-contract-disputes-your-court-or-mine/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 23:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6411</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Franz Lopez In Black &#38; MacDonald Limited v Eiffage Innovative Canada Inc.,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed an appeal of a lower court’s decision to stay two proceedings related to the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge crossing over the Fraser River in Delta, British Columbia (the “Project”) as a result of jurisdictional [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/proper-forum-in-interjurisdictional-contract-disputes-your-court-or-mine/">Proper Forum in Interjurisdictional Contract Disputes: Your Court or Mine?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/proper-forum-in-interjurisdictional-contract-disputes-your-court-or-mine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Energy Group’s ONSC Action Stayed Pending Outcome of Small Claims Court Actions</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-energy-groups-onsc-action-stayed-pending-outcome-of-small-claims-court-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ontario-energy-groups-onsc-action-stayed-pending-outcome-of-small-claims-court-actions</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-energy-groups-onsc-action-stayed-pending-outcome-of-small-claims-court-actions/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2022 20:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6327</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Kathryn Orydzuk In MDG Newmarket Inc. v Symonds, 2022 ONSC 6481, Justice Vermette rendered a decision on an interesting motion that touched upon the doctrine of abuse of process, and when commencing a separate action in the Superior Court may effectively be considered an attempt to transfer a matter out of the Small Claims [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-energy-groups-onsc-action-stayed-pending-outcome-of-small-claims-court-actions/">Ontario Energy Group’s ONSC Action Stayed Pending Outcome of Small Claims Court Actions</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-energy-groups-onsc-action-stayed-pending-outcome-of-small-claims-court-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jurisdiction Over Michigan Accident</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/jurisdiction-michigan-accident/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=jurisdiction-michigan-accident</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/jurisdiction-michigan-accident/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4994</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Orum v. Maksuta, 2021 ONSC 2974, the plaintiff was struck by a motor vehicle in Michigan.&#160;He commenced an action in Ontario against the driver and also against his Ontario insurer for uninsured/underinsured coverage.&#160;He did not commence an action in Michigan and the limitation period to do so expired. The defendant driver brought a motion [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/jurisdiction-michigan-accident/">Jurisdiction Over Michigan Accident</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/jurisdiction-michigan-accident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-42</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2021 14:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5015</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Chris MacDonald discussed the Superior Court’s decision in Del Giudice v. Thompson,&#160;2021 ONSC 2696. In this decision, the plaintiffs, Rina Del Giudice and Daniel Wood, sought court approval of a settlement agreement with the defendant, Github Inc., pursuant to section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, whereby the action would [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Establishing Jurisdiction Through E-Commerce</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/establishing-jurisdiction-e-commerce/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=establishing-jurisdiction-e-commerce</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/establishing-jurisdiction-e-commerce/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2020 03:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3458</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Brian Sunohara For many years now, consumer transactions have been conducted over the Internet, sometimes with companies in faraway places.  With the prevalence of e-commerce, more and more questions are arising over whether a business which has no physical presence in a jurisdiction can be sued in that jurisdiction, if it engages consumers through the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/establishing-jurisdiction-e-commerce/">Establishing Jurisdiction Through E-Commerce</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/establishing-jurisdiction-e-commerce/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiffs Permitted to Sue in Ontario for Scooter Accident in Thailand</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/plaintiffs-permitted-sue-ontario-scooter-accident-thailand/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=plaintiffs-permitted-sue-ontario-scooter-accident-thailand</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/plaintiffs-permitted-sue-ontario-scooter-accident-thailand/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=1916</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Vahle et al v. Global Work &#38; Travel Co. Inc., the court determined that Ontario has jurisdiction over a lawsuit related to an accident that occurred in Thailand. Two sisters from Ontario went to Thailand to teach English. The teaching program was organized by the defendant. While riding a motor scooter, the sisters were struck [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/plaintiffs-permitted-sue-ontario-scooter-accident-thailand/">Plaintiffs Permitted to Sue in Ontario for Scooter Accident in Thailand</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/plaintiffs-permitted-sue-ontario-scooter-accident-thailand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
