Tony Merchant, the lawyer representing Tim Cimmer in their legal battle, is still needing to respond to the latest documents filed by the Niessners and their lawyer, Grant Scharfstein. One important issue is registering the New Jersey Judgment in Saskatchewan. The court has been making decisions that don’t follow the usual laws, which makes the justice system inconsistent. This is why it’s crucial to address the situation.
In a recent legal document, Originating Application submitted by a lawyer named Grant Scharfstein on behalf of his clients, the Niessner family, they claimed that a court decision from New Jersey could be recognized and enforced in the Province of Saskatchewan. However, upon taking a closer look at the legal details, it becomes clear that there are important reasons why the New Jersey court decision cannot be officially recognized and enforced in Saskatchewan. In this article, we will explore the different legal factors that make it difficult for this recognition and enforcement to happen.
Jurisdictional Constraints: Paragraph 6, subsection (g) of the Originating Application asserts that the Courts of the State of New Jersey had and continue to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the New Jersey Action and the parties involved. However, the establishment of jurisdiction requires a sufficient link or connection between the business and the country where the claim is being brought. When evaluating the five common factors that establish jurisdiction, it becomes apparent that New Jersey lacked the necessary jurisdiction to initiate the case.
Business Operations: One factor that can establish jurisdiction is if the business conducts significant operations within the country. In this case, it is crucial to determine whether Keeley Lake Lodge, the subject of the dispute, had any substantial presence or conducted operations in New Jersey. Testimony from Madelyn, provided on August 18, 2021, during her conversation with Bill Hood, explicitly stated that there were no Keeley Lake Lodge business documents in the US, nor had any business ever been conducted there. Her comprehensive 297-page testimony further confirms the absence of any business operations for Keeley Lake Lodge in the US.
Lack of Business Links: Considering Madelyn’s testimony and denial of any business being done for Keeley Lake Lodge in New Jersey, it is evident that there is a lack of substantial business links between the lodge and the state. Without such connections, it becomes questionable whether New Jersey had the appropriate jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Jurisdictional Appropriateness: The Originating Application suggests that it was appropriate for the Courts of the State of New Jersey to take jurisdiction in the New Jersey Action. However, the contradiction between Madelyn’s statement and the claim of jurisdiction raises doubts about the appropriateness of New Jersey’s involvement in the case. With no evidence of business operations or books for Keeley Lake Lodge in New Jersey, the assertion of jurisdiction appears to be unfounded.
Despite the confidence expressed by Grant Scharfstein in his clients, the Niessner family, regarding the registration of the New Jersey Judgment in Saskatchewan, it is clear that there are substantial legal hurdles to overcome. Jurisdictional constraints, including the absence of business operations and the lack of a sufficient link between the business and New Jersey, question the legitimacy of the New Jersey Judgment. It is crucial for legal authorities in Saskatchewan to thoroughly examine these issues before considering the registration of the judgment.
