Global Light Telecommunications Inc. et al. v. GST Telecommunications Inc. et al., (1999) 13 B.C.T.C. 59 (SC)

• Judge: Satanove, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 18, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 13 B.C.T.C. 59 (SC)

Global Light v. GST Telecom. (1999), 13 B.C.T.C. 59 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JN.056

Global Light Telecommunications Inc. and GST Mextel Inc. (plaintiffs) v. GST Telecommunications Inc. and GST Telecom Inc. (defendants)

(C990449)

Indexed As: Global Light Telecommunications Inc. et al. v. GST Telecommunications Inc. et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Satanove, J.

May 18, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff corporations, sued the defen­dant corporations in British Columbia, alleg­ing that the parties had a binding agreement regarding transfer of the defendants' shares in a digital fibre optics Mexican telecom­munication network in consideration for an undetermined number of shares. The defen­dants sued the plaintiffs in California for fraud regarding the transfer of the network's ownership. A California judge held that the more convenient forum was British Colum­bia. The defendants sued the plaintiffs in Washington one day prior to this action. One defendant was a federally incorporated Cana­dian corporation with its registered office in British Columbia. The other defendant did not have a presence in British Columbia, but was a Delaware corporation which carried on business in Vancouver and Washington. One of the plaintiffs was incorporated in Yukon territories with the site of its control and management in British Columbia. The defen­dant corporations applied for declarations that the court lacked jurisdiction or, alterna­tively, that the court decline jurisdiction in favour of another forum. One corporate defendant also applied to set aside service ex juris of the statement of claim.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application. The court held that: there was a real and substantial connec­tion to British Columbia; that the court had jurisdiction simpliciter over the proceedings; and the defendant did not establish that Washington was clearly more appropriate forum than British Columbia. Witnesses resided in both places, damages were suf­fered by the plaintiffs and the defendant in British Columbia, the governing law over the mechanism of transferring shares was in Canada and the Mexican network issue was raised first in British Columbia. There was no true juridical disadvantage to the defen­dants in subjecting themselves to British Columbia courts.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1664

Actions - Forum conveniens - Consider­ations - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1665

Actions - Forum conveniens - Procedure for determining forum conveniens - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1666

Actions - Forum conveniens - Stay of proceedings where action pending in another jurisdiction (lis alibi pendens) - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7232

Contracts - Choice of law - Jurisdiction with closest and most substantial connec­tion - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7284

Contracts - Jurisdiction - Forum conveniens - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7601

Torts - Jurisdiction - Forum conveniens - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

472900 B.C. Ltd. et al. v. Thrifty Canada Ltd. (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 233; 190 W.A.C. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Avenue Properties Ltd. v. First City Devel­opment Corp. (1986), 32 D.L.R.(4th) 40 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Westec Aerospace Inc. v. Raytheon Air­craft Co. (1999), 122 B.C.A.C. 18; 200 W.A.C. 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Cook et al. v. Parcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra, P.C. (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 97; 143 W.A.C. 97; 31 B.C.L.R.(3d) 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Antares Shipping Corp. v. Ship Capricorn et al. (1976), 7 N.R. 518; 65 D.L.R.(3d) 105 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 96; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 62, refd to. [para. 21].

Banco do Brasil S.A. v. Ship Alexandros G. Tsavliris et al., [1992] 3 F.C. 735; 145 N.R. 140 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

J. Wood, Q.C. and P. Juk, for the plain­tiffs;

W. Derby and R.W. Cooper, for the defen­dants.

These applications were heard at Van­couver, British Columbia, on April 26 and 27, 1999, before Satanove, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 18, 1999.