Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Forum Non Conveniens Appeal

November 30, 2007/3 Comments/in /by Stephen Pitel
image_pdfimage_print

The Supreme Court of Canada has just granted leave to appeal in Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada (also indexed as Lloyd’s Underwriters v. Cominco Ltd.), a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (available here).

In British Columbia the insurance companies each sought a declaration that they did not have to defend or indemnify Teck Cominco in respect of environmental damage claims.  Teck Cominco moved to stay those proceedings, primarily on the basis that related litigation was already underway in the State of Washington, USA.  The motion was denied and that decision was upheld on appeal, such that the British Columbia proceedings could proceed.

It is unusual for the Supreme Court of Canada to agree to hear an appeal about the most appropriate forum for the resolution of a dispute.  As is its practice, the court did not provide any reasons for its decision to grant leave.  The court may be wanting to address the role of comity in stay motion cases where there has been a prior positive assertion of jurisdiction by a foreign court. 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Stephen Pitel https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Stephen Pitel2007-11-30 14:17:012007-11-30 14:17:01Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Forum Non Conveniens Appeal
3 replies
  1. Chuck says:
    November 30, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied review over what I presume is the U.S. portion of this case. The question raised to the Court was whether “American environmental laws . . . can be applied unilaterally to penalize the actions of a foreign company in a foreign country undertaken in accordance with that country’s laws.” Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. v. Pakootas, No. 06-1188 (2007), cert denied, 549 US __ (2007). The Ninth Circuit answered that question in the affirmative, presumably giving rise to the Canadian indemnity action (?). The decision to deny cert. was noted here (with links to the breifs) at https://conflictoflaws.de/2007/recognition/may-2007-roundup-of-us-decisions/

  2. Charles Kotuby says:
    December 14, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    A correction to the above comment. The Supreme Court of the United States did not, as originally posted, deny cert in the Teck Cominco Metals v. Pakootas case. They discussed the Petition at their June 4, 2007 conference but, taking no action at that time, invited the Solicitor General to file an Amicus Brief. That brief was filed on November 20, 2007, and the Petition will be reconsidered at the Court’s private conference on January 4, 2008. A link to the docket is available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1188.htm.
    We may soon have an extraordinary situation where two closely related cases involving different aspects of the same dispute will be heard concurrently before the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Canada.

  3. Charles Kotuby says:
    January 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    The Supreme Court of the United States today denied the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Teck Cominco Metals v. Pakootas case. A link to the Court’s order sheet is available at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/orders-mon-010708.pdf.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Rome I: EP Adopts Legislative Resolution at First Reading Link to: Rome I: EP Adopts Legislative Resolution at First Reading Rome I: EP Adopts Legislative Resolution at First Reading Link to: Opinion on European Service Regulation Link to: Opinion on European Service Regulation Opinion on European Service Regulation
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top