United Oilseed Products Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, (1988) 87 A.R. 337 (CA)

• Judge: Stevenson, Foisy and Stratton, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 30, 1988
• Citations: (1988), 87 A.R. 337 (CA);1988 ABCA 207;[1988] 5 WWR 181;60 Alta LR (2d) 73;87 AR 337;[1988] AJ No 467 (QL);29 CPC (2d) 28

United Oilseed Products Ltd. v. Royal Bk. (1988), 87 A.R. 337 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

United Oilseed Products Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Royal Bank of Canada (defendant/appellant)

(Appeal #19388)

Indexed As: United Oilseed Products Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada

Alberta Court of Appeal

Stevenson, Foisy and Stratton, JJ.A.

May 30, 1988.

Summary:

The Alberta plaintiff brought an action in Alberta against the defendant bank, alleging that the bank gave inaccurate information about a customer of the bank to the Winnipeg branch of the plaintiff's bank. All of the documents and witnesses relating to the defendant bank's relations with its customer were in Ontario and the customer was in receivership in Ontario. The plaintiff's evidence, relating primarily to quantum, was in Alberta. The bank applied for a stay of the action on the ground that Alberta was not the proper forum. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment unreported in this series of reports dismissed the application. The defendant appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that the defendant demonstrated that Ontario was clearly and distinctly more appropriate as a forum for the action than Alberta. The court applied Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1986] 3 All E.R. 843; 71 N.R. 372.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1661

Actions - General - Forum conveniens - General - The Alberta Court of Appeal adopted the decision of the House of Lords in Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1986] 3 All E.R. 843; 71 N.R. 372, respecting the appropriate forum for an action - The court held that: (1) the test to be applied in all cases where there is an issue of determining the appropriate forum, is that of forum conveniens, the forum which is more suitable for the ends of justice; (2) where a forum possesses jurisdiction over a defendant, as of right, the defendant must show that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more suitable; (3) where the jurisdiction does not exist as of right, the same burden rests on the party seeking to establish jurisdiction (typically service ex juris); (4) while the overall burden is as stated, the party alleging an advantage or disadvantage must establish it.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1664

Actions - General - Forum conveniens - Considerations - The Alberta plaintiff brought an action in Alberta against the defendant bank, alleging that the bank gave inaccurate information about a customer of the bank to the Winnipeg branch of the plaintiff's bank - All of the documents and witnesses relating to the defendant bank's relations with its customer were in Ontario and the customer was in receivership in Ontario - The plaintiff's evidence, relating primarily to quantum, was in Alberta - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's Alberta action should be stayed, because Ontario was the forum conveniens for the action, being "clearly and distinctly more appropriate" than Alberta - See paragraphs 34 to 36.

Courts - Topic 18

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Adoption of authority from another jurisdiction - Subsequent reconsideration in other jurisdiction - Effect of - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that, "when authority from another jurisdiction has been incorporated into our law, we are free to reconsider our decisions when that authority is called into question in that jurisdiction" and that "it is appropriate that we satisfy ourselves that the rationale for the earlier decisions is not vitiated by the later authority" - See paragraph 16.

Cases Noticed:

Mohler v. Dairy Queen of Western Canada, [1976] 3 W.W.R. 619, appld. [para. 8].

Atlantic Star, The, [1974] A.C. 436 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 8].

St. Pierre v. South American Stores, [1936] 1 K.B. 382, not folld. [para. 8].

Talbot v. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation and Pan Ocean Oil Ltd. (1977), 5 A.R. 361; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 354, consd. [para. 9].

MacShannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd., [1978] A.C. 795; [1978] 1 All E.R. 625, consd. [para. 11].

Abidin Daver, The, [1984] A.C. 398, consd. [para. 12].

Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1986] 3 All E.R. 843; 71 N.R. 372, appld. [para. 13].

Antares Shipping Corporation v. The Ship "Capricorn" et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 422; 7 N.R. 518, appld. [para. 18].

Bonaventure Systems Inc. et al. v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1986), 18 O.A.C. 112; 57 O.R.(2d) 27, consd. [para. 19].

Rogers, Rogers and Cornwall v. Bank of Montreal et al., [1984] 2 W.W.R. 597, consd. [para. 21].

Gerling Global General Insurance Company and American Home Assurance Company v. PCL Construction Ltd. (1986), 75 A.R. 340; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 375, consd. [para. 22].

de Dampierre v. de Dampierre, [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1006 (H.L.), consd. [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McLeod, Conflict of Laws (1983) [para. 25].

Counsel:

F.R. Foran, for the appellant defendant;

R.D. Maxwell, for the respondent plaintiff.

This case was heard before Stevenson, Foisy and Stratton, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On May 30, 1988 Stevenson, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.