How is the Real and Substantial Connection Test applied?

The first question is resolved by the “real and substantial connection” test, and the second by application of the forum non conveniens doctrine. As noted in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Limited (2010), 316 D.L.R. (4th) 201, 2010 ONCA 84 (leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted without reasons, July 8, 2010), there is a clear distinction between the test and the doctrine: 82 I would reiterate what we said in Muscutt: there is a clear distinction to be drawn between legal jurisdiction simpliciter and the discretionary test for forum non conveniens. The factors to be considered are different and distinct. In order to maintain the necessary degree of certainty and clarity, it is important to maintain and respect the distinction between the two tests. In particular, the factors listed for consideration at the second, discretionary, forum non conveniens stage, have no bearing on real and substantial connection and, therefore, should not be considered at the first stage of jurisdiction simpliciter analysis. The test for jurisdiction simpliciter is whether there is a real and substantial connection, an inquiry that does not turn upon a comparison with the strength of the connection with another potentially available jurisdiction. The Real and Substantial Connection Test