Furlan v. Shell Oil Co., 2000 BCCA 404

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Esson, Rowles and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 BCCA 404
• Citation: 2000 BCCA 404,(2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 235 (CA),[2000] 7 WWR 433,77 BCLR (3d) 35,140 BCAC 235,[2000] BCJ No 1334 (QL),(2000), 140 BCAC 235 (CA),[2000] B.C.J. No 1334 (QL),140 B.C.A.C. 235
• Date: 30 June 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

Furlan v. Shell Oil Co. (2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 235 (CA);

    229 W.A.C. 235

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.020

Jean-Michel Furlan, Donald Atkinson, Russell D. Reid, Mark Zwanski, Grev Grey and Kirsten Williams (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Shell Oil Company, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company and Hoechst Celanese Corporation (defendants/appellants)

(CA026285; CA026287; CA026305; 2000 BCCA 404)

Indexed As: Furlan et al. v. Shell Oil Co. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Esson, Rowles and Mackenzie, JJ.A.

June 30, 2000.

Summary:

The defendants applied under rules 13(10) and 14(6)(c) of the Rules of Court for, inter alia, an order to set aside service ex juris of the writ of summons on the defendants. At issue was whether the plaintiff, who had the onus of establishing a "good arguable case" against the defendants, had to adduce evi­dence instead of relying upon the pleadings.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 21 B.C.T.C. 30, dis­missed the application. If the allegations in the plain­tiffs' pleadings were established, a good arguable case would have been advanced. The plaintiffs, in light of the extensive pleadings, were only required to establish that on the basis of their pleadings alone, a good arguable case had been pre­sented. The plaintiff did not have to adduce evidence as a prerequisite to establishing a good arguable case. The def­endants ap­pealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 603

Jurisdiction - General principles - Juris­diction simpliciter - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that a court had jurisdiction simpliciter over a case when there was a real and substantial connection between the court and the defendant or the subject matter of the litigation - See para­graph 3.

Practice - Topic 2566.1

Service - Service of notice, writ or state­ment of claim out of jurisdiction - Setting aside service or order for service ex juris -Evidence - The plaintiffs sued for damages for negligent supply of resins used in plumbing pipes, joints and fittings, without warning that the resins were unfit for that purpose - The plaintiffs obtained an order for service ex juris under rule 13(1)(h) (proceedings founded on a tort committed in B.C.) - None of the defend­ants had a presence in B.C. - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the Cham­bers judge was right to refuse to set aside service ex juris - The affidavit evidence of the defendants did not negate jurisdiction simpliciter, as established by the plaintiffs' pleadings - See paragraphs 17 to 24.

Practice - Topic 2569

Service - Service of notice, writ or state­ment of claim out of jurisdiction - Evi­dence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the issue of service ex juris could be determined by the pleadings alone - The defendant must introduce evidence, not merely to make denials or raise affirmative defences on the pleadings, before the plaintiff was required to make an evidentiary response - Where the plead­ings do not clearly allege the facts required to support jurisdiction under either rule 13(1) or 13(3), evidence was admis­sible of facts relevant to jurisdiction simpliciter - See paragraphs 7 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. Grace (W.R.) & Co. - Conn. (1990), 50 B.C.L.R.(2d) 260 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

Bushell v. T & N plc et al. (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 36; 26 W.A.C. 36; 67 B.C.L.R.(2d) 330 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

Nova, An Alberta Corp. v. Grove Estate and Guelph Engineering Co. et al., [1982] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 A.R. 409 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Orr v. Brown et al., [1932] 2 W.W.R. 626 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Northland Properties Ltd. v. Equitable Properties Co., [1991] B.C.J. No. 4068 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Quest Vitamin Supplies Ltd. v. Hassam (1992), 79 B.C.L.R.(2d) 85 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Stern v. Dove Audio Inc., [1994] B.C.J. No. 863 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Long v. Western Propeller Co. (1968), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 345 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 13(1)(h), rule 13(1)(o) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (1989), vol. 1, p. 320 [para. 21].

McLachlin and Taylor, British Columbia Practice (2nd Ed. 1998), pp. 13-53 [para. 15]; 13-54 [paras. 15, 16].

Counsel:

Elliott M. Myers and S.E. Margolis, for the defendant/appellant, Shell Oil Com­pany;

Ward K. Branch and D.B. Levans, for the defendant/appellant, E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company;

Derek J. Mullan, Q.C., for the defendant/ appellant, Hoechst Celanese Corporation.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 22, 2000, by Esson, Rowles and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Mackenzie, J.A., on June 30, 2000.