| Internet activity which crosses boundaries between states, provinces and countries raises questions of which courts should take jurisdiction over the complaint or to prosecute the offence and what level of Internet activity constitutes a sufficient connection with the forum for the courts to properly exercise jurisdiction. The answer to this question is important to Canadians doing business on the Internet so they know what country or state laws must be honored, where and in what circumstances they can be subjected to litigation and to know whether a U.S. judgment will be recognized and enforced in a Canadian jurisdiction where their assets are located.; A review of the case law in the U.S. and Canada reveals a trend by the courts to assume both adjudicative and prescriptive jurisdiction based on little more than that the Internet activity results in harmful effects in the forum if the legislation, law or regulation sought to be enforced is one involving a 'protection of the public'. In strictly private disputes, such as a breach of contract action or trademark dispute, the courts generally look first to ensure that the cause of action arises from the Internet activity and, if that connection is found, will address whether there are sufficient additional contacts to justify the assumption of jurisdiction over the defendant and to meet the requirements imposed by the constitutions of the country where the action is brought. |
