Amchem Products Inc. v. WCB (1993), 150 N.R. 321 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Workers’ Compensation Board et al. (appellants) v. Amchem Products Inc. et al. (respondents)
and
Workers’ Compensation Board et al. (appellants) v. T & N plc (respondent)
and
Workers’ Compensation Board et al. (appellants) v. The Flintkote Company (respondent)
(22256)
Indexed As: Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers’ Compensation Board (B.C.)
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
March 25, 1993.
Summary:
194 claimants sued several asbestos companies in Texas for damages in negligence, primarily alleging failure as manufacturers to notify and warn users of the dangers of asbestos products. The claimants were people injured by exposure to asbestos or dependants of deceased people affected by asbestos and most were residents of British Columbia at pertinent times; although some were residents of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Washington State. In all but 40 claims the B.C. Workers’ Compensation Board had a subrogated interest. Most of the companies were incorporated and based in the United States and most carried on manufacturing business in Texas; although none was incorporated there. None had a connection with British Columbia.
The Texas court affirmed their jurisdiction over the action. The companies then applied in British Columbia for an injunction to prevent continuation of the claimants’ Texas suit and claimed abuse of process.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [1990] 2 W.W.R. 601; 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 77; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 567; 38 C.P.C.(2d) 232, granted the anti-suit injunction, but struck out the claim for abuse of process. The claimants appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported [1991] 1 W.W.R. 243; 50 B.C.L.R.(2d) 218; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 44 C.P.C.(2d) 1, dismissed the appeal, but affirmed the striking out of the abuse of process claim. The claimants appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the anti-suit injunction, reviewing the British, American and Canadian law and defining the modern Canadian position in the process.
Conflict of Laws – Topic 9303
Practice – Injunctions – To enjoin foreign proceedings – The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the historical and current legal positions in Britain, the United States, Australia and Canada on the issue of anti-suit injunctions respecting foreign actions (see paragraphs 35 to 50) before prescribing a Canadian rule (see paragraphs 51 to 56).
Conflict of Laws – Topic 9303
Practice – Injunctions – To enjoin foreign proceedings – Anti-suit injunction – The Supreme Court of Canada held: “…when a foreign court assumes jurisdiction on a basis that generally conforms to our rule of private international law relating to the forum non conveniens, that decision will be respected and a Canadian court will not purport to make the decision for the foreign court. The policy of our courts with respect to comity demands no less. If, however, a foreign court assumes jurisdiction on a basis that is inconsistent with our rules of private international law and an injustice results to a litigant or ‘would-be’ litigant in our courts, then the assumption of jurisdiction is inequitable and the party invoking the foreign jurisdiction can be restrained.”
Conflict of Laws – Topic 9303
Practice – Injunctions – To enjoin foreign proceedings – 194 claimants, mostly B.C. residents, sued U.S.-based asbestos manufacturers in Texas, where the manufacturers had plants, claiming damages for negligent failure to notify and warn users of asbestos risks – The manufacturers had no connection with B.C., but successfully applied there for an injunction to prevent continuation of the Texas suit – The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the injunction, where the Texas court assumed jurisdiction upon a basis consistent with the Canadian law of forum non conveniens and the manufacturers failed to show that continuation of the Texas proceedings would unjustly deprive them of a legitimate juridical advantage – See paragraphs 57 to 63.
Cases Noticed:
Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 5].
Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. – see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.
Dow Chemical Co. v. Alfaro (1990), 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.), cert. denied 59 U.S.L.W. 3460, refd to. [para. 7].
Castanho v. Brown & Root (U.K.) Ltd., [1981] A.C. 557; [1981] 1 All E.R. 143; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 991; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 113; 124 Sol. Jo. 884 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 13, 36].
Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] 3 All E.R. 510; [1987] A.C. 871; [1987] 3 W.L.R. 59; 84 L.S. Gaz. 2048 (P.C.), appld. [paras. 13, 37, 50].
SNI – see Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale.
Antares Shipping Corp. v. Ship Capricorn et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 422; 7 N.R. 518, refd to. [para. 20].
Bushby v. Munday, [1814-23] All E.R. Rep. 304; 5 Madd. 297; 56 E.R. 908, consd. [paras. 20, 35].
Laker Airways v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines (1984), 731 F.2d 909 (D.C.F.C.A.), appld. [paras. 23, 39].
Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 217; 46 C.P.C.(2d) 1; 52 B.C.L.R.(2d) 160; 15 R.P.R.(2d) 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 256, appld. [paras. 23, 50].
Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1987] A.C. 460; 71 N.R. 372; [1986] 3 All E.R. 843; [1987] 1 F.T.L.R. 103; [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1987] E.C.C. 168; 130 Sol. Jo. 925; 84 L.S. Gaz. 113; 136 New L.J. 1137 (H.L.), appld. [para. 26].
Ship Atlantic Star; Atlantic Star (Owners) v. Bona Spes (Owners), [1973] 2 All E.R. 175; [1974] A.C. 436; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 795; 117 Sol. Jo. 371 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 27, 36].
Rockware Glass Ltd. v. MacShannon; Redpath Dorman Long Ltd. v. Fythe; British Steel Corp. v. Jardine; Stone Manganese Marine Ltd. v. Patterson, [1978] 2 W.L.R. 362; [1978] A.C. 795; [1978] 1 All E.R. 625; 122 Sol. Jo. 81 (H.L.), consd. [para. 27].
De Dampierre v. De Dampierre, [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1006; [1988] A.C. 92; 131 Sol. Jo. 471; [1987] 2 All E.R. 1; [1987] 2 F.L.R. 300; 17 Fam. Law 418; 84 L.S. Gaz. 1493 (H.L.), consd. [para. 29].
Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. (1990), 65 A.L.J.R. 83 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].
Club Méditerranée N.Z. v. Wendell, [1989] 1 N.Z.L.R. 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981), 454 U.S. 235 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].
St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd., [1936] 1 K.B. 382; [1935] All E.R. Rep. 408; 105 L.J.K.B. 436; 154 L.T. 546 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 32, 36, 37].
Avenue Properties Ltd. v. First City Development Corp., [1987] 1 W.W.R. 249; 32 D.L.R.(4th) 40; 7 B.C.L.R.(2d) 45 (C.A.), appld. [para. 33].
British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd., [1985] A.C. 58; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 413; 128 Sol. Jo. 531; [1984] 3 All E.R. 39; [1984] L.M.C.L.Q. 563; [1985] E.C.C. 49; 134 New L.J. 746; 81 L.S. Gaz. 2849 (H.L.), consd. [para. 36].
South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Assurantie Maatshappij De Zeven Provincien N.V.; South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Al Ahlia Insurance Co., [1987] A.C. 24; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 398; 130 Sol. Jo. 634; [1986] 3 All E.R. 487; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 317; 136 New L.J. 751; 83 L.S. Gaz. 2659 (H.L.), consd. [para. 36].
Cole v. Cunningham (1890), 133 U.S. 107, consd. [para. 39].
Unterweser Reederei, GmbH v. M/S Bremen (1970), 428 F.2d 888 (5th Cir.), consd. [para. 41].
Gau Shan Co. v. Bankers Trust Co. (1992), 956 F.2d 1349 (6th Cir.), consd. [para. 41].
National Mutual Holdings Pty. Ltd. v. Sentry Corp. (1989), 87 A.L.R. 539 (F.C. Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 43].
Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty. Ltd. v. Trade Practices Commission (1982), 152 C.L.R. 460, refd to. [para. 43].
Cooper Estate v. Canadian Home Assurance Co. (1986), 73 N.S.R.(2d) 230; 176 A.P.R. 230; 10 C.P.C.(2d) 195; 18 C.C.L.I. 279; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 419 (C.A.), consd. [para. 46].
Rowan Cos. v. DiPersio (1990), 96 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 253 A.P.R. 181; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 224 (C.A.), consd. [para. 46].
Allied-Signal Inc. v. Dome Petroleum Ltd., [1989] 5 W.W.R. 326; 67 Alta. L.R.(2d) 259 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 47].
Kornberg v. Kornberg, [1991] 2 W.W.R. 594; 70 Man.R.(2d) 182; 47 C.P.C.(2d) 58; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 379; 30 R.F.L.(3d) 238 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1991] 1 S.C.R. x, consd. [para. 48].
Aikmac Holdings Ltd. v. Loewen, [1989] 6 W.W.R. 759; 66 Man.R.(2d) 295 (C.A.), consd. [para. 48].
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), 95 U.S. 714, consd. [para. 60].
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), 326 U.S. 310, consd. [para. 60].
Milliken v. Meyer (1940), 311 U.S. 457, consd. [para. 60].
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984), 466 U.S. 408, consd. [para. 60].
Statutes Noticed:
Civil Procedure and Remedies Code (Texas), sect. 71.031 [para. 6].
Constitution of the United States, Fourteenth Amendment, sect. 1 [para. 60].
Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 224, sect. 36 [para. 54].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Black, Vaughan, The Standard for Issuing Antisuit Injunctions in Canada (1991), 44 C.P.C.(2d) 30, pp. 31-32 [para. 60].
Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (11th Ed. 1987), vol. 1, p. 391 [para. 2].
Edinger, Elizabeth R., Conflict of Laws – Jurisdiction – British Columbia Residents Bringing Action for Damages in Texas Against Non British Columbia Resident Defendants – Defendants Seeking Anti-Suit Injunction in British Columbia: Amchem Products v. Workers’ Compensation Board (Case Comment) (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 117, p. 127 [para. 51].
Hayes, Ellen L., Forum Non Conveniens in England, Australia and Japan: The Allocation of Jurisdiction in Transnational Litigation (1992), 26 U.B.C. L. Rev. 41, pp. 42-43 [para. 31]; 63 [para. 34].
Raushenbush, Richard W., Antisuit Injunctions and International Comity (1985), 71 Va. L. Rev. 1039, generally [para. 24]; pp. 1049-1050 [para. 41].
White and Tudor, Leading Cases in Equity (9th Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 635-636 [para. 43].
Counsel:
J.J. Camp, Q.C., Patrick G. Foy and J. Fiorante, for the appellants;
Bryan Williams, Q.C., and Terrance A. Kowalchuk, for the respondents, Amchem Products Inc. et al.;
James A. Macaulay, Q.C., and Kenneth N. Affleck, for the respondent, T & N plc.
Solicitors of Record:
Ladner, Downs, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;
Swinton & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents, Amchem Products Inc. et al.;
Macaulay & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, T & N plc.;
Edwards, Kenny & Bray, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Flintkote Co.
This appeal was heard on May 25, 1992, before La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 25, 1993, Sopinka, J. delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.
