Tolofson v Jensen


Tolofson v Jensen, 3 S.C.R. 1022 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of laws in tort. The Court held that the primary determiner in selecting a country's law in tort should be the lex loci. The case was decided with Lucas v Gagnon.

Background

Prior to this case, the leading case on the matter was McLean v Pettigrew, S.C.R. 62 which stated that the proper law to apply would always be the lex fori, the local law of the court, irrespective of the connection with the jurisdiction.

Tolofson case

A father and son from British Columbia are driving in Saskatchewan and are in a motor vehicle accident with Leroy Jensen, a resident of Saskatchewan. The son, Kim Tolofson, sues both Jensen and his father. Under Saskatchewan law the claimant must prove gross negligence in order for a gratuitous passenger to recover and the limitation period is 12 months. Kim did not sue for six years once he became 18 years old.

Lucas case

The Gagnon family from Ontario were driving in Quebec and were in a motor vehicle accident with Mr. Lavoie, a Quebec resident. No action was allowed under Quebec no-fault system.

Ruling of the Court

Justice La Forest wrote for the majority. He considered the issue of territorial limits of jurisdiction. He concluded that the general policy interests were those of order and fairness. He was highly concerned of confusion resulting from complex rules.
La Forest explicitly stated that exceptions to this rule should be rare. He argued that exceptions would "encourage frivolous cross-claims and joinders of third parties", it would create uncertainty, discourage judges to make summary judgments, and would discourage settlement. He contemplated that there may be exception at the international level where there may be injustice or where both parties are domiciled in the forum.
Alberta later enacted a Limitations Act to get around the result in Tolofson.
Subsequent cases have considered the limits of the exception to the Tolofson rule. In Hanlan v Sernesky where the court found exception to the rule on an international matter. However, similar reasoning was rejected on provincial matters in Leornard v Houle.