|
[1] THE COURT: The defendant company, 49 North Forwarding Ltd., brings this application to strike or stay the plaintiff's action, which was commenced in British Columbia. Essentially the defendant company says the Court should decline jurisdiction, as the claim is most appropriately dealt with by the courts in Manitoba. The defendant's head office is in Manitoba.
[3] I agree with the plaintiff that it would be unreasonable to expect him to conduct this litigation in Manitoba. The defendant has been accustomed to conducting some business in British Columbia, and in any event its management staff will be traveling from Alberta to give evidence in the proceedings.
--------------------- Document abbreviated for this website ------------------
[19] Moreover, this may well be a case that is appropriate for summary disposition under Rule 18A. That is, of course, not something I am prepared to state in any way categorically or make any findings on at this point, but it is one of many factors.
[20] Accordingly, the defendant company's application is dismissed.
[21] I do want to thank both counsel for their very good and thorough submissions. They were helpful to me in this rather troublesome area of the law.
[22] Anything further, counsel?
[23] MR. COULTER: Just costs, My Lady.
[24] THE COURT: Yes, I think costs, in any event, are appropriate in this case.
Madam Justice Wedge
Comments / Questions?
Mr. Lawrence W. Coulter
Employment Lawyer
 |
#5 - 21183 88th Avenue
Langley, BC V1M 2G5
Canada
|
|
e-Mail: LCoul59467@aol.com
Phone: (604) 882-5015 |
|
Site developed and maintained by Answers Technologies
|
