Salguiero et al. v. Instant Brands Inc. et al., 2022 ONSC 4345

This action arises from personal injury related to a pressure cooker. The plaintiff sued Amazon, Instant Brands, and GD Midea. GD Midea was the manufacturer of the pressure cooker and was located in China. GD Midea’s insurer was aware of the claim and had appointed counsel, but argued that because service was not done in accordance with the Convention through the Chinese central authority, GD Midea was not required to respond to the action. The plaintiff argued that the insurer’s knowledge of the claim was sufficient and that the Court should deem service to have been properly completed. Justice MacLeod held that the Rules and the Convention required service on GD Midea through the central authority, and that until such service took place, GD Midea was not required to serve pleadings. He granted an extension of 24 months for service on the Chinese company based on the suggestion that service in China generally took around 18 months.

Enclosures Direct Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2018 ONSC 6089

Pursuant to Rule 16.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, service of an originating process on a corporation may be effected by leaving a copy with an officer, director or agent of the corporation or with a person at any place of business of the corporation who appears to be in contral or management of the place of business. In this case, the court held that personal service of a receptionist at the corporation’s place of business was insufficient as she was not an “officer, director or agent” and there was no evidence to support a finding that the receptionist was in control or management of the place of business.