A Multitude of Real and Substantial Connections
Posted by Seva on June 18, 2008
It’s not a novel point, but always nice to have an additional authority for the argument that jurisdiction simpliciter of a court does not necessarily exclude jurisdiction simpliciter of other courts. As Mr. Justice Ehrcke confirmedin Mountain West Studios Ltd. v. Dalderis, 2008 BCSC 697, “depending on the facts of a case, there may be a real and substantial connection with more than one jurisdiction.”
On the facts of the case before him, Ehrcke J. concluded that the fact that the defendant (resident of Alberta) worked for the plaintiff (resident of B.C.) in both B.C. and Alberta was sufficient to show a real and substantial connection to B.C. Although he did not expressly indicate if this fact pattern fell under one of the s. 10 CJPTA RaSC presumptions, it seems to be congruent with s. 10(e)(i): “the contractual obligations, to a substantial extent, were to be performed in British Columbia”.
Additionally, Ehrcke J. also relied on the recently discussed BCCA decision in Purple Echo for the proposition that the governing law and exclusive jurisdiction clauses pointing to B.C., although attacked by the defendant as being part of a superseded and thus unenforceable contract, “showed a good arguable case that [jurisdictional facts] can be established.”
