At heart, the constraints on long arm jurisdiction are concepts of international law, and the principle that one country ought not exercise state power over the territory of another unless some recognized exception applies.
And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
[3]In 1987, the Supreme Court, in its ruling in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court,[4] laid down a five-factor test to determine whether "traditional notions of fair play" would permit the assertion of personal jurisdiction, under the reasonableness requirement,[5] over an out-of-state defendant: There was discussion as to the Court's wisdom in not employing Asahi as a way to articulate "a similarly limited position [as in World-Wide Volkswagen] for the United States within the international community.
"[11] The risks that a more expansive view of general jurisdiction would pose to international comity were recently dealt with in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.[12] and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority.
[21] It ruled that jurisdiction must be established primarily on the basis of objective factors that connect the legal situation or the subject matter of the litigation with the forum.
In a case concerning a tort, the following factors are presumptive connecting factors that, prima facie, entitle a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute: It was also held that a Canadian court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the defendant invokes forum non conveniens.