File No. 33900 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: RICHARD C. BREEDEN, RICHARD C. BREEDEN & CO., GORDON A. PARIS, JAMES R. THOMPSON, RICHARD D. BURT, GRAHAM W. SAVAGE and RAYMOND G.H. SEITZ APPELLANTS (Appellants) - and - CONRAD BLACK RESPONDENT (Respondent) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AND BETWEEN: RICHARD C. BREEDEN, RICHARD C. BREEDEN & CO., GORDON A. PARIS, JAMES R. THOMPSON, RICHARD D. BURT, GRAHAM W. SAVAGE and RAYMOND G.H. SEITZ APPELLANTS (Appellants) - and - CONRAD BLACK RESPONDENT (Respondent) (Style of cause continues inside pages) FACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Supreme Factum 2005 Limoges Street Tel.: 613 737-0834 Longueuil, Québec J4G 1C4 Fax: 450 442-2040 www.supremefactum.ca [email protected] S-3407-10 - 2 - AND BETWEEN: RICHARD C. BREEDEN, RICHARD C. BREEDEN & CO., GORDON A. PARIS, JAMES R. THOMPSON, RICHARD D. BURT, GRAHAM W. SAVAGE and RAYMOND G.H. SEITZ APPELLANTS (Appellants) - and - CONRAD BLACK RESPONDENT (Respondent) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AND BETWEEN: RICHARD C. BREEDEN, RICHARD C. BREEDEN & CO., GORDON A. PARIS, JAMES R. THOMPSON, RICHARD D. BURT, GRAHAM W. SAVAGE and RAYMOND G.H. SEITZ APPELLANTS (Appellants) - and - CONRAD BLACK RESPONDENT (Respondent) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AND BETWEEN: RICHARD C. BREEDEN, RICHARD C. BREEDEN & CO., GORDON A. PARIS, GRAHAM W. SAVAGE, RAYMOND G.H. SEITZ and PAUL B. HEALY APPELLANTS (Appellants) - and - CONRAD BLACK RESPONDENT (Respondent) - 3 - AND BETWEEN: RICHARD C. BREEDEN, RICHARD C. BREEDEN & CO., GORDON A. PARIS, JAMES R. THOMPSON, RICHARD D. BURT, GRAHAM W. SAVAGE, RAYMOND G.H. SEITZ, SHMUEL MEITAR and HENRY A. KISSINGER APPELLANTS (Appellants) - and - CONRAD BLACK RESPONDENT (Respondent) Mr. Paul B. Schabas Ms. Nancy K. Brooks Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Commerce Court West, Suite 2800 World Exchange Plaza, Suite 2000 199 Bay Street 45 O’Connor Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5L 1A9 K1P 1A4 Tel.: 416 863-4274 Tel.: 613 788-2200 Fax: 416 863-2653 Fax: 613 788-2247 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants Agent for the Appellants Richard C. Breeden and Richard C. Breeden and Richard C. Breeden & Co. Richard C. Breeden & Co. Mr. Robert W. Staley Ms. Nancy K. Brooks Bennett Jones LLP Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place World Exchange Plaza, Suite 2000 P.O. Box 130 45 O’Connor Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5X 1A4 K1P 1A4 Tel.: 416 777-4857 Tel.: 613 788-2200 Fax: 416 863-1716 Fax: 613 788-2247 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants Agent for the Appellants Gordon A. Paris, Gordon A. Paris, James R. Thompson, James R. Thompson, Richard D. Burt, Graham W. Savage, Richard D. Burt, Graham W. Raymond G.H. Seitz, Paul B. Healy, Savage, Raymond G.H. Seitz, Shmuel Meitar and Henry A. Kissinger Paul B. Healy, Shmuel Meitar and Henry A. Kissinger - 4 - Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C. Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Lerners LLP Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Suite 2400 Suite 2600 130 Adelaide Street West 160 Elgin Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5H 3P5 K1P 1C3 Tel.: 416 601-2350 Tel.: 613 786-0139 Fax: 416 867-2402 Fax: 613 563-9869 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent Agent for the Respondent - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANTS’ FACTUM Page PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................. 1 A. OVERVIEW .............................................. 1 B. FACTS ..............................................5 i. The Nature Of The Actions: Statements Made In The United States .............................................. 5 ii. The American Context In Which The Statements Were Made .............................................. 5 iii. The Plaintiff’s Significant Connections To The United States .............................................. 8 iv. The Defendants’ Lack Of Connections To Canada .............................................. 9 v. The Related American Legal Proceedings .............................................. 9 vi. The Decisions Below ............................................ 11 PART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ............................................ 12 (a) The proper test for assuming jurisdiction over transnational defamation cases and whether jurisdiction was properly assumed by the courts below in these Actions; and ............................................ 12 (b) The proper approach to forum non conveniens in transnational defamation cases, and whether it was properly applied by the courts below in these Actions ............................................ 12 PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ............................................ 12 A. JURISDICTION ............................................ 12 i. The Development Of A Real And Substantial Connection Test ............................................12 ii. Application Of The Real And Substantial Test: Muscutt, CJPTA And Van Breda ............................................ 13 (a) Appellants’ Position On Jurisdiction ............................................15 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANTS’ FACTUM Page iii. Application Of The Real And Substantial Test To Transnational Libel ............................................ 16 (a) Appellants’ Position: The Substance Of The Claim ............................................ 16 (b) Problems With Approaches By The Courts Below ............................................ 18 (i) Presumed Jurisdiction Encou- rages Forum Shopping ............................................ 18 (ii) Damage Sustained In The Jurisdiction ............................................ 22 (iii) Foreseeability Test Is Misplaced ............................................ 22 (iv) “Targeting” ............................................ 24 (c) Other Factors Weighing Against Ontario Assuming Jurisdiction ............................................ 25 (d) Libel Tourism In England And Australia ............................................ 28 B. FORUM NON CONVENIENS ............................................ 32 i. The 2004 Decision Of Justice Farley ............................................ 34 ii. The Location Of The Majority Of The Parties ............................................ 35 iii. The Location Of Key Witnesses And Evidence ............................................ 36 iv. Avoidance Of A Multiplicity Of Proceedings ............................................ 36 v. Loss Of Juridical Advantage ............................................ 37 vi. Choice Of Law ............................................ 38 PART IV – SUBMISSION ON COSTS ............................................ 40 PART V – ORDER REQUESTED ............................................ 40 PART VI – ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................ 41 - iii - TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANTS’ FACTUM Page PART VII – STATUTES, REGULATIONS, RULES Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 165 ............................................ 48 Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44, s. 234 ............................................ 49 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 36 ............................................ 50 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 17(a) ............................................ 53 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 1.08, 17.02 ............................................ 54 Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, s. 75(1) ............................................ 61 APPENDIX “A” – OVERLAP OF ISSUES IN THE ACTIONS AND THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDING ....................................... 62 - 1 - Appellants’ Factum Statement of Facts APPELLANTS’ FACTUM PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS A. OVERVIEW 1. These cases raise the issue of “libel tourism” – forum shopping in which a plaintiff brings an action in the jurisdiction most likely to give a favourable result, even though the jurisdiction has no real and substantial connection to the matters at issue in the action. This Court must consider the circumstances in which Canadian courts should not assume jurisdiction over libel suits based on alleged defamatory statements made in foreign countries but accessed over the Internet in Canada. 2. Conrad Black (“Black”) is a libel tourist. He brings these actions (the “Actions”) in Ontario even though he is no longer a Canadian citizen and, as a convicted felon, cannot enter the country. Black sues in respect of statements that were made by Hollinger International Inc. (“International”) in New York City and relate to a report of an American-based court-sanctioned investigation by International’s directors and advisors into wrongdoing by Black in connection with his operation, as Chair and CEO, of International – a public company incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in New York and Chicago, and subject to the securities, criminal and other laws of the United States (the “Investigation Report”). The Investigation Report was filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and with a U.S. court in accordance with a U.S. court order. Nine of the ten defendants have no connection to Ontario. The statements at issue