BC Lawsuit For Alberta Car Crash Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing a BC lawsuit on grounds that it had no jurisdiction over an Alberta based collision claim.
In today’s case (Brooks v. Leithoff) the Plaintiff was involved in a total of 5 collisions. Four of the five occured in BC. The third occured in Alberta. The Plaintiff sued the Alberta motorist in BC alleging the crashes all gave rise to a single indivisible injury.
The Defendant sought to have the claim dismissed on the basis that there was no connection to BC to the crash. The Court agreed with the Defendant and dismissed the lawsuit. In doing so and finding the claim should have been filed in Alberta Madam Justice Power provided the following reasons:
 When I consider the plaintiff’s arguments, I am not persuaded that the facts that the plaintiff points to are sufficient to displace what I view to be the clear weight of case law in British Columbia: neither the plaintiff’s residency in British Columbia, nor the fact of indivisible injuries, nor the fact that the plaintiff is suffering ongoing damages in British Columbia, are, by themselves, sufficient to establish a clear and substantial connection to British Columbia. When these three elements are combined, do these elements together then prove sufficient to ground jurisdiction? I cannot conclude that they do.
 During the course of argument, the plaintiff fairly conceded that some of the plaintiff’s arguments related to forums conveniens, which is not something I should take into account at this stage. The plaintiff may have to mount two separate trials on substantially the same evidence as a result of this ruling, but again, that is not a factor I should take into when determining whether jurisdiction has been established.
 During arguments, counsel for the plaintiff also suggested that if I did not accept that there was jurisdiction under s. 3(e) of the CJPTA, I could nevertheless exercise my residual discretion under s. 6 of the Act to find that this Court has jurisdiction.
 In my view, this argument must fail because the exercise of discretion under s. 6 requires that either a) there is no court outside British Columbia in which the plaintiff can commence the proceeding, or b) that the commencement of the proceeding in a court outside British Columbia cannot reasonably be required. The fact that the plaintiff has already commenced an action in Alberta leads me to conclude that it is open to the plaintiff to continue litigation of this matter in that jurisdiction.
 During the arguments before me, counsel for the plaintiff also pointed to concerns relating to fairness, and the practical difficulties that Ms. Brooks would face in bringing two separate but essentially identical claims in two separate jurisdictions. While I appreciate these practical difficulties, there are times when appeals to fairness in the law must yield to the demands for clarity and order in the law. The words of Mr. Justice La Forest in Tolofson v. Jensen,  3 S.C.R. 1022 at 1058, although made in a somewhat different context, are nevertheless applicable here:
While, no doubt … the underlying principles of private international law are order and fairness, order comes first. Order is a precondition to justice.
 Overall, it is my view that the weight of the case law clearly establishes that the facts here are not sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection to British Columbia.
 In the result, the defendant’s application to strike and dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for want of jurisdiction in British Columbia is granted.