The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether harm caused by conspiracy fits under the mandatory presumption categories under s. 10 of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) that determine a real and substantial connection to the jurisdiction of British Columbia. Justice Newbury held that a conspiracy causing harm in British Columbia is sufficient to establish the real and substantial connection necessary to prove jurisdiction under these provisions. Jurisdiction had been established and the appeal dismissed.
The significant issue arose in the context of a cluster of inter-connected companies alleged to be conspiring to fix diamond prices worldwide. The plaintiff represented a class of consumers in British Columbia who bought the diamonds in the province at an increased price due to conspiracy. The defendants argued that they were not involved in selling gem-grade diamonds and, with the exception of De Beers Canada, did not perform any operations in Canada throughout the relevant period. Sections 10(g) and 10(f) of the CJPTA state that a real and substantial connection is presumed to exist where the facts allege restitutionary obligations that arose in British Columbia or where the facts allege a tort committed in British Columbia. Justice Newbury held that a conspiracy causing harm in British Columbia is sufficient to establish the real and substantial connection necessary to prove jurisdiction under these provisions. She noted a similar approach was taken in both Ontario (Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. [2002] O.J. No. 298) and in Quebec (Option Consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2011 QCCA 2116), where purely economic harm caused in the jurisdiction by conspiracies originating abroad is regarded as appropriate proof of a real and substantial connection to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and maintained that jurisdiction had been established.
Rebecca Vasluianu
*
No comments:
Post a Comment