Summary#
Bill 29 would set rules for when New Brunswick courts can hear cases involving people, businesses, property, and events connected to other provinces or countries. It would also create a process for moving cases between New Brunswick courts and courts outside the province. The bill appears intended to make court jurisdiction and case transfers more consistent.
- New Brunswick courts could hear a case when there is a “real and substantial connection” (a meaningful link) between New Brunswick and the facts of the case.
- The bill lists situations where that connection would be presumed, including cases involving New Brunswick property, contracts performed in the province, local businesses, local torts (civil wrongs), and enforcement of judgments.
- Courts could refuse to hear a case if another court outside New Brunswick is clearly more suitable.
- Exclusive court agreements would generally be followed. However, consumers and individual employees could choose not to be bound by those agreements.
- The Court of King’s Bench could transfer all or part of a case to an out-of-province court, or accept a transfer from one.
- A New Brunswick court generally could not decide title to, or possession of, land outside New Brunswick. It could still hear some related contract, trust, or civil wrong claims.
- The bill would start on a date set by government proclamation. The supplied material does not show whether it would replace or amend specific existing laws.
What it means for you#
- People bringing lawsuits: You may be able to bring a case in New Brunswick if you live here, if the dispute concerns events or property here, or if another strong connection exists.
- Consumers: A contract cannot necessarily force you to bring a case only in another province or country. The bill would let a consumer choose to have the case heard under the more flexible rules.
- Employees: An individual employment contract could not necessarily prevent an employee from pursuing a case in New Brunswick.
- Businesses: A business could be treated as ordinarily resident in New Brunswick if it has a local office, place of business, registered service address, agent, or central management here.
- People involved in cases elsewhere: A case could move to or from New Brunswick if both courts have the required authority and the transfer is fair and practical.
- People with cases about land outside New Brunswick: New Brunswick courts generally could not decide who owns or possesses that land. Some related legal claims could still be heard here.
- Parties to a lawsuit: Courts would consider travel, expense, witnesses, applicable law, the risk of conflicting decisions, and whether a judgment could be enforced when deciding where a case should proceed.
- Timing: Bill 29 was tabled for first reading on March 18, 2026. The supplied material does not establish that it has passed or taken effect.
Expenses#
The bill could create legal and administrative work for courts and parties, especially when courts must decide jurisdiction or arrange a transfer. No specific estimate is provided.
- Government and courts: The bill may require courts to review jurisdiction and transfer applications, send court records, and manage cases moving between legal systems.
- Individuals and businesses: Parties may face added legal costs when arguing about the proper court or seeking a transfer.
- Public cost: No publicly available information.
- New fees or fines: The supplied material identifies none.
Proponents' View#
No official supporter statements or explanatory notes were supplied. Based on the bill’s text, possible arguments in favour include:
- The bill could make the rules for deciding which court may hear a case more predictable.
- The listed connection tests could help people determine when a New Brunswick court is an appropriate place to sue.
- Allowing transfers between courts could reduce duplicated proceedings and conflicting decisions.
- The rules could help prevent cases from being brought in New Brunswick when another court is clearly better suited to hear them.
- Special treatment for consumers and individual employees could protect them from being forced to sue far from home.
- Written reasons and conditions for transfers could improve clarity about why a case was moved and how it should continue.
Opponents' View#
No statements from opponents were supplied. Possible concerns based on the bill’s design include:
- The term “real and substantial connection” may still require court disputes because the bill does not define one single test for every situation.
- Deciding which court is “clearly more appropriate” could add delay and legal expense before a case reaches its main hearing.
- Transfers involving another province or country may be difficult if the other court does not accept the transfer or applies different procedures.
- Parties may face uncertainty about which rules, limitation periods, and court orders apply while a case moves between courts.
- Businesses and other organizations may have to assess their local offices, management, contracts, and service arrangements to understand where they can be sued.
- The bill does not provide a cost estimate or explain in detail how courts will handle the added transfer work.
- The supplied material does not identify whether existing New Brunswick laws would be repealed, amended, or continue to operate alongside this bill.