A new legal phenomenon has emerged in recent years, as plaintiffs from developing countries have begun to initiate civil proceedings against multinational corporations in the courts where these companies have their headquarters. These suits have typically claimed damages for personal injuries arising from the multinationals' activities in a developing country. While the doctrine of forum non conveniens blocked many of the earlier attempts by plaintiffs to seek justice overseas, courts are increasingly refusing to dismiss these cases to ensure the interests of justice are served. The purpose of this thesis will be to compare the application of forum non conveniens to these cases in Canada, with the approaches in the U.K., the U.S. and Australia. The thesis concludes that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction to consider civil claims against a resident for extraterritorial harm and that this jurisdiction can be appropriately exercised where the foreign plaintiff is not likely to receive justice in the alternative forum. Precedents from the U.K., the U.S. and Australia, where courts have already accepted such jurisdiction, will also be examined for their relevance in Canada.

No description available.