Suchergebnisse

The plaintiff, a New Brunswick company, maintained aircraft engines and often sent engines to the United States to be repaired by the original manufacturer or other repair facilities. The plaintiff contracted with the first defendant, a Canadian logistics operator, to handle the customs clearances. The first defendant often subcontracted the work to the second defendant, a United States logistics operator. When the plaintiff, under pressure from United States authorities, undertook a review of its compliance with United States customs laws, the defendants (so the plaintiff alleged) failed to provide sufficient or timely assistance, a default for which the plaintiff sued them in British Columbia. The first defendant was registered as an extraprovincial corporation in British Columbia, and so had appointed an agent for service there, but the second defendant applied to have the claim against it dismissed on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depended on whether the claim had a real and substantial connection with the province as required by section 3(e) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 28. The chambers judge held that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring its claim with one or other of the categories of presumed real and substantial connection in section 10 of the act.