03/02/2020 2017 FC 114 (CanLII) | CanLII republishing their personal information and making it accessible via search engines. The respondent is aware of these complaints. [56] There is evidence that the Romanian authorities have acted to curtail the respondent’s activities and that they have cooperated with the OPCC investigation. Is that sufficient reason not to exercise the PIPEDA jurisdiction in this context? I think not. I accept the submission of the OPCC that the principle of comity is not offended where an activity takes place abroad but has unlawful consequences here: Libman, above, at p 209. [57] In Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 SCR 69 [Chevron], the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Ontario Courts have jurisdiction over a Canadian subsidiary of Chevron, an American corporation and a stranger to the foreign judgment for which recognition and enforcement was being sought in Canada. In that case, the Ontario Court of Appeal had affirmed an Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron. [58] In upholding the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision, Justice Gascon noted that “Canadian courts, like many others, have adopted a generous and liberal approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments”: Chevron, above, at para 27. The only prerequisite for recognizing and enforcing such a judgment is that the foreign court had a real and substantial connection with the litigants or with the subject matter of the dispute, or that the traditional bases of jurisdiction were satisfied: Chevron, above, at para 27. [59] On the principle of comity, Justice Gascon observes that “the need to acknowledge and show respect for the legal action of other states has consistently remained one of the principle’s core components”: Chevron, above, at para 53. In this regard, comity militates in favour of recognition and enforcement. The principle of comity further provides that legitimate judicial acts should be respected and enforcement not sidetracked or ignored: Chevron, above, at para 53. [60] In the case at bar, since Romanian authorities have cooperated with the OPCC investigation and taken action to curtail the respondent’s activities, the legitimate judicial acts of this Court will not be seen as offending the principle of comity. The respondent was fined for contravening Romanian data protection laws by, among other things, charging a fee for the removal of personal information from Globe24h.com. The respondent has appealed this fine to a Romanian court. Given the involvement of the Romanian counterpart to the OPCC, this Court’s findings would complement rather than offend any action that may be taken in a Romanian court. [61] During the OPCC’s investigation, the respondent relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572 [Van Breda] to argue that the PIPEDA did not apply to his activities in Romania. Van Breda concerned two individuals that were injured while on vacation outside of Canada. Actions were brought in Ontario against a number of parties, including Club Resorts Ltd., a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. [62] Club Resorts Ltd., the appellant in Van Breda, argued that the Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction. To determine the issue of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court applied the “real and substantial connection” test. The Court had to consider whether carrying on business in the jurisdiction may also be considered an appropriate connecting factor. Ultimately, the Court found that the notion of carrying on business requires some form of actual, not only virtual, presence in the jurisdiction, such as maintaining an office there or regularly visiting the territory of the particular jurisdiction: Van Breda, above, at para 87. [63] However, I note that the Supreme Court was careful to distinguish between traditional categories of business and “e-trade”. Justice LeBel noted that the Court was not asked to decide whether e-trade in the jurisdiction would amount to a presence in the jurisdiction. Had there been a discussion about jurisdiction in the context of etrade, I would have considered the connecting factors discussed in Van Breda as helpful to the analysis in the case at bar. [64] Van Breda was limited to the specific context of tort claims. The Supreme Court was clear that it was not, in that case, providing an “inventory of connecting factors covering the conditions for the assumption of jurisdiction over all claims known to the law”: Van Breda, above, at para 85. The Court was concerned about creating what would amount to forms of universal jurisdiction in respect of tort claims arising out of certain categories of business or commercial activity. As such, Justice LeBel confined the application of Van Breda to limited areas of private https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc114/2017fc114.html 10/21