Law360 Canada ( April 15, 2026, 9:37 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Smiley from a decision staying her civil action against Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation (Foundation) and Kakfwi on the basis of forum non conveniens. Smiley alleged that Kakfwi committed sexual battery against her in St. John’s during a Foundation conference, and she advanced claims against the Foundation for vicarious liability, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of confidence and privacy. The Foundation accepted that Newfoundland and Labrador had jurisdiction simpliciter over the sexual‑battery claim but sought a stay, arguing Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum because the Foundation was based in Montreal, the contractual relationships were governed by Quebec law, and the underlying fiduciary and contractual claims arose there. Smiley argued that Newfoundland and Labrador was appropriate because the tort occurred there, she could not retain counsel in Quebec due to the Foundation’s influence, litigation in Quebec would be traumatic and prejudicial to her as an Indigenous woman uncomfortable litigating in French and starting over would impose significant costs. She also argued the judge misapprehended evidence on witness location, document location, comparative financial burden, access‑to‑justice barriers, and the heart of the dispute. During the appeal, the Foundation referenced newly commenced Quebec proceedings initiated by Smiley. Smiley moved to strike those references as improper new evidence and the Foundation sought admission, and Smiley also sought to tender her own affidavit explaining she had commenced the Quebec action only to preserve limitation rights. The issues on appeal were whether new evidence should be admitted, whether the judge misapprehended or ignored material evidence or erred in principle in the forum non conveniens analysis, and whether Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum under the factors of efficiency, fairness, and comity....