Ontario Courts Refuse to Stay Action Against Nigerian Defendants

The Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in James Bay Resources Limited v. Mak Mera Nigeria Limited, 2015 ONCA 781  this week.  This is an appeal by Nigerian appellants who had lost a motion to stay an action brought by James Bay Resources Limited (“James Bay Resources”) on the ground that the Ontario courts lacked “jurisdiction simpliciter” and Ontario was not the convenient forum for the determination of the dispute between the parties. 

 

James Bay Resources entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the appellant, Adewale Olorunsola (“Sola”) on March 3, 2011.  The MOU was negotiated and signed in Ontario.  It set out an arrangement between the parties with respect to the acquisition of Nigerian oil and gas assets. 

 

On February 12, 2012, James Bay Resources and the appellant, Mak Mera Limited (“Mak Mera”) entered into a letter agreement which replaced the MOU (“Agreement”).  The Agreement was far more detailed than the MOU.  Sola signed both the MOU and the Agreement.

 

A dispute arose between the parties in respect of the contractual arrangements.  The dispute was fueled by a letter sent by Mak Mera to Royal Dutch Shell PLL on July 2, 2014.  The letter was copied to James Bay Resources, as well as to many others, including the Nigerian Ambassador to Canada and a number of officials of the Nigerian government.  Madam Justice MacFarland of the Court of Appeal found that absence truth, the statements made in the letter were "quite clearly defamatory" of James Bay Resources.

 

On September 4, 2014, James Bay Resources commenced proceedings against Mak Mera and Sola in Ontario.  On September 16, 2014, Mak Mera, Sola and Sola’s father-in-law (a Nigerian resident and Chairman of Mak Mera), commenced an action in Nigeria against numerous parties including James Bay Resources and its CEO, Stephen Shafsky.  Some of the claims in the Nigerian action were similar to those in the Ontario action. 

 

James Bay Resources moved in The Federal High Court of Nigeria to strike the Nigerian action on the grounds that the Nigerian court lacked jurisdiction.  It was unsuccessful.  James Bay Resources is appealing that order.

 

On March 2, 2015, Mak Mera and Sola moved to strike or permanently stay the Ontario action.  Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and identified several presumptive factors that would apply, including that Sola is an Ontario resident and both the MOU and the Agreement were negotiated and signed in Ontario.  Justice Perell also found that the Agreement provides that it is governed by Ontario law and contains a choice of forum clause that names Ontario as the jurisdiction where any disputes would be resolved.  He noted, “Neither Mak Mera nor Mr. Sola has advanced any cogent argument that there is a rebuttal of the contractual connection as a presumptive factor.  Their arguments may be relevant to the issue forum conveniens, but jurisdiction is not rebutted.”.  Mak Mera and Sola appealed to the Court of Appeal. 

 

The appellants made no oral submissions rebutting the contractual connection as a presumptive factor.  Justice MacFarland held that the arguments raised on appeal went to the merits of the claims, not to jurisdiction of the Ontario courts.  Those issues did not displace or challenge the fact that both agreements (the MOU and the Agreements) were negotiated and signed in Ontario and that Sola is an Ontario resident – both are strong, presumptive factors.   

 

The appellants also argued that Justice Perell had erred in law by failing to specifically consider comity in his analysis.  Justice MacFarland embarked on a detailed analysis of the goal of comity in jurisdictional motions.  She referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Van Breda v. Village Resorts, [2012] 1 SCR572:

 

The goal of the modern conflicts system is to facilitate exchanges and communications between people in different jurisdictions that have different legal systems.  In this sense it rests on the principle of comity.  But comity itself is a very flexible concept.  It cannot be understood as a set of well-defined rules, but rather as an attitude of respect for and deference to other states and, in the Canadian context, respect for and deference to other provinces and their courts.  Comity cannot subsist in private, international law without order, which requires a degree of stability and predictability in the development and application of the rules governing international or inter-provincial relationships.  Fairness and justice are necessary characteristics of a legal system, but they cannot be divorced from the requirements of predictability and stability which assure order in the conflicts system.   In the words of LaForest J., in Morguard, “what must underlie a modern system of private, international law and principles or order and fairness, principles that ensure security of transactions with justice”.

 

Accordingly, Justice MacFarland found that comity is not a stand-alone factor.  She held that it was part and parcel of the forum non conveniens assessment in a given case.  In dismissing the appeal, Justice MacFarland held that Justice Perell had considered the issue of comity in his analysis.  He had done so implicitly when he outlined and considered all of the relevant factors in coming to his conclusion that Nigeria was not the more convenient forum. 

 

Justice Perell was aware of the Nigerian litigation which was started after the Ontario action.  He was aware that James Bay Resources had filed a statement of defence in that action, and brought an unsuccessful motion to strike and was appealing the dismissal of its motion.  The appellants had cited no law for their argument that by filing a statement of defence in the Nigerian action, James Bay Resources had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian courts. 

 

Justice MacFarland agreed with Justice Perell’s conclusion that “balancing all factors, Nigeria is not clearly the appropriate forum for the dispute and Ontario is not forum non conveniens.”.

Regards,

Blair

 

 

Ontario sues Big Tobacco for $50 Billion for "Tobacco Related Wrongs"

The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the government of Ontario can proceed with a $50 billion lawsuit against several foreign tobacco companies to recover the cost of health care services arising from "tobacco related disease " and "tobacco related wrongs". See Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. 2013 ONCA 353

 

Ontario's case is based on legislation - The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act - enacted by the province in 2009.  The Act gave Ontario a stand-alone statutory right to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover the cost of health care services provided to the public as a result of "tobacco related disease arising out of tobacco related wrongs". 

 

In substance, Ontario is claiming that since the 1950s, several of the defendants committed tobacco related wrongs  by manufacturing and distributing cigarettes in Ontario when they knew or ought to have known that smoking cigarettes and being exposed to second-hand smoke could cause or contribute to disease.  In addition, Ontario claims that all of the defendants have engaged in various conspiracies to mislead the government and the public about the dangers of smoking and to suppress information about those dangers.

 

Many of the defendants are foreign - British American Tobacco (Investment) Limited, BAT Industries p.l.c., British American Tobacco p.l.c., Carreras Rothmans Limited, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company and RJ Reynolds Tobacco International Inc.  Several of these foreign defendants asserted that the Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction to determine the claims against them and brought a motion to set aside the service ex juris of the statement of claim and to stay or dismiss the action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.  Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the defendants' motion.  They appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. 

 

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:

 

Under rule 17.02(g) of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may be served out of Ontario with a statement of claim where there is an allegation that the damages sought  are based on a tort committed in Ontario.  The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that a claim in respect of a tort committed within the jurisdiction gives rise to a "presumptive connective factor" sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection with the jurisdiction. Unless rebutted, this factor is sufficient to provide the domestic court with "jurisdiction simpliciter" to determine the dispute before it.  In this case, the foreign defendants claimed that the offence created by the Act was not a tort for the purposes of rule 17.02(g).   However, the Court of Appeal held that, "If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."   In the court's view, Ontario's claim against the defendants under the Act created a statutory tort and fell within the section of the rule.

 

In addition, the Court of Appeal held that t is a breach of a common law duty to engage in a civil conspiracy that causes harm to others.   A conspiracy occurs in the jurisdiction where the harm is suffered regardless of where the wrongful conduct occurred.  The Act addresses this sort of breach and provides for joint and several liability where two or more defendants jointly breach a duty or obligation described in the definition of tobacco related wrong.  The  Court of Appeal held that Ontario's claim in this action is founded on the common law tort of conspiracy, alleged to have been committed in Ontario because the damage flowing from the conspiracy was sustained in Ontario.  It is therefore an action in respect of a tort committed within Ontario was contemplated by the rule.  

 

Secondly, the Court of Appeal held that Ontario had established "a good arguable case" for the Ontario courts to assume jurisdiction. 

 

The Court of Appeal held that it is well established that an Ontario court will assume jurisdiction against a foreign defendant only where the plaintiff establishes a good arguable case for assuming jurisdiction either through the allegations in the statement of claim or a combination of the allegations in the statement of claim and evidence filed on the jurisdiction motion.  

 

The Court of Appeal found that Justice Conway did not err, when she concluded that, despite deficiencies in Ontario's statement of claim, Ontario had established a good arguable case for assuming jurisdiction.  

 

The case law on the issue did not go as far as the defendants had argued.  Even if Ontario's statement of claim was deficient, Justice Conway was of the view that it was capable of amendment.  In the Court of Appeals' opinion, on a jurisdiction motion, the motion judge is not required to subject the pleadings to the scrutiny applicable on a rule 21 motion (motion to strike pleadings).  So long as the statement of claim advances the core elements of a cause of action known to law and appears capable of being amended to cure any pleading deficiencies such that the claim will have at least some prospect of success, the issue for the motion judge is whether the claimant has established a good arguable case that the cause of action is sufficiently connected to Ontario to permit an Ontario court to assume jurisdiction.

 

The motion judge did that in the following way, by submitting the allegations on the motion to the following assessment:

 

(a)    the facts pleaded in the statement of claim are taken as true and if they are sufficient to establish a good arguable case, the pleadings alone can satisfy the court that it has jurisdiction;

 

(b)     the foreign defendants may put forth affidavit evidence for the purpose of challenging the factual allegations in the statement of claim, but any allegations in the statement of claim that remain unchallenged by the defendants may be challenged as true for the purpose of the jurisdiction motion; and

 

(c)    the plaintiff may respond to any evidence put forward by the foreign defendants in order to satisfy the court that there is a good arguable case.

 

The Court of Appeal held that the core allegations against the defendants were that they participated in three levels of conspiracy to breach duties to persons in Ontario:  an international conspiracy; a Canadian conspiracy, and intra-group conspiracies.  The court was satisfied that the pleadings, in combination with the affidavit evidence filed by the parties, adequately established a cause of action known to law with sufficient connection to Ontario.  It held that a jurisdiction motion is not the appropriate proceeding for scrutinizing in detail the adequacy of the pleadings, nor is it the proper place for engaging in a rigorous assessment of whether the plaintiff's claim would ultimately succeed.  

 

Ontario's case against the tobacco companies will proceed in the Ontario courts.

 

Regards,

 

Blair