Thorne et al. v. Hudson et al., 2016 ONSC 5507
In cases with multijurisdictional facts, the choice of law analysis depends on the specific tort alleged. In Thorne, the claims were mainly based on the tort of negligent misrepresentation, which occurs where the misinformation is received or relied upon.
Released September 7, 2016 | Full Decision [CanLII]
The defendants, airplane engine manufacturers, brought an unsuccessful summary judgement motion against the plaintiffs. In this case, a private airplane engine failed during a 2007 flight from Oshawa to the United States, crashing in New York. The family members of people killed in the crash brought an action in Ontario against the airplane manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers sent faulty repair instructions. The repair instructions were published through bulletins and manuals, which were received in Ontario. The engines were also repaired and maintained in Ontario. The defendant manufacturer brought a summary judgment motion on the basis that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-298, Aug. 17, 1994, 108 Stat. 1552 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) (“GARA”) applied. GARA is an American federal statute that imposes an 18-year final limitation period on all civil actions against aviation manufacturers. The defendants argued that as the failed engine was installed 39 years prior to the accident, the limitation period established by GARA barred the claims.
Following the doctrine of lex locus delicti, the Court held that the law of the place where the tort occurred is the substantive law for tort claims. The Court cautioned that “neither the fact that the harm to the Family Law Act plaintiffs occurred in Ontario, nor that the alleged misdeeds of [the defendants] occurred in Pennsylvania, is dispositive of the choice of law analysis.” The choice of law analysis depends on the specific tort alleged.
The Court held that the crux of the plaintiffs’ claims was the tort of negligent misrepresentation, through faulty engine repair bulletins and manuals sent by the defendant manufacturers. The tort of negligent misrepresentation occurs where the misinformation is received and relied upon. As the bulletins and manuals were received in Ontario, and were relied upon in Ontario, the court held that the tort occurred in Ontario. Furthermore, the Court held that the law of the place where the wrong occurred provides the applicable limitation period. Therefore, the limitation period established by GARA did not apply and the plaintiffs’ claims were not statue-barred.
Read the full decision on CanLII