Challenge of Jurisdiction: Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. and Black v. Breeden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canadian law, there is a substantive limit to a court's territorial jurisdiction when a case lacks a real and substantial connection, even if the rules of court would permit the plaintiff to serve the defendant with process. Canadian lawyers have to distinguish between the question whether the court has territorial jurisdiction as a matter of law (jurisdiction simpliciter) and the question whether the court should exercise that jurisdiction as a matter of discretion, usually on the ground of forum non conveniens.This paper focuses on the jurisdiction simpliciter issue in each of these cases. Van Breda reconsidered, and to some extent altered, the approach to real and substantial connection taken by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Muscutt v Courcelles (2002). Black v Breeden applied the new analysis to a libel action brought by a former resident of Ontario against defendants who were resident in the United State and whose allegedly defamatory statements were published on an American website. The conclusion in both cases was that the court had jurisdiction simpliciter and should not decline it. An issue raised, but not addressed, by Black v Breeden is the choice of law question when defamatory statements are disseminated internationally over the Internet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".