The appellant mining company sued its insurers in the U.S. for coverage relating to environmental damage alleged to have occurred in Washington State.
The insurers commenced parallel proceedings in British Columbia seeking declarations that they were not obligated to defend or indemnify the appellant.
The appellant sought to stay the British Columbia proceedings on the basis that the U.S. District Court had already asserted jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 11 of British Columbia's Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, a foreign court's prior assertion of jurisdiction is only one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, and the chambers judge did not err in refusing the stay.
