What is the test for determining jurisdiction under the concurrency model?

In Weber v. Ontario Hydro, 1995 CanLII 108 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 there is confirmation for the view that jurisdiction is determined by looking to facts giving rise to the dispute and not to the legal characterization. In that case McLachlin J., as she then was, went on to say: ¶49 . . . It would also leave it open to innovative pleaders to evade the legislative prohibition on parallel court actions by raising new and imaginative causes of action, as remarked by La Forest J.A. in the Court of Appeal decision in St. Anne Nackawic, at pp. 694-95. This would undermine the legislative purposes underlying such provisions and the intention of the parties to the agreement. This approach, like the concurrency model, fails to meet the test of the statute, the jurisprudence and policy.