The thrust of those cases is to effectively delineate the positions that can be taken by a court regarding its jurisdiction to hear or deal with a proceeding. On the one hand, a court may determine that it has jurisdiction simpliciter, that there is no other forum that is clearly more appropriate in which the matter may be heard and, therefore, proceed to deal with the matter. Alternatively, a court may determine that it has sufficient connection to the subject matter or the litigants to take jurisdiction but decline to do so on the basis that there is another clearly more appropriate forum, with concurrent jurisdiction, in which the matter would be more properly heard. In the further alternative, which in reality follows from the jurisdiction simpliciter analysis, a court may find that it is without jurisdiction and, accordingly, must decline to become involved with the proceeding. (See Roth v. Interlock Services, Inc. (2004), 1 C.P.C. (6th) 373 (B.C.C.A.)).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.