Report No. 193
La Forest J than declared that it was not necessary to wait for legislation. He said:
"I do not think it is necessary to await legislation to do away with the rule in conflict of laws cases. The principal justification for the rule, preferring the lex fori over the lex loci delicti, we saw, has been displaced in this case. So far as the technical distinction between right and remedy, Canadian courts have been chipping away at it for sometime on the basis of relevant policy considerations. I think this court should continue this trend. It seems to be particularly appropriate to do so in the conflict of laws field where, as I stated earlier, the purpose of substantive/procedural classification is to determine which rules will make the machinery of the Court run smoothly as distinguished from those determination of the rights of both parties."
The Supreme Court approved the trend started by Stratton CJ NB in Clerk v. Naqvi, (1990)99 N.B.R. (2nd) 271(CA) where, after referring to Yew Ban Tew (PC), the judge had held (p 275) that the limitation period of Nova Scotia which was one year was substantive and the action commenced in New Brunswick beyond one year was barred as the Nova Scotia rule applied. La Forest J concluded that 'if this is not the law, the courts would be inviting "forum shopping" that is to be avoided if we are to attain the consistency of result in an effective system of conflict of laws should seek to foster'.
Back
