Claims Involving Out-of-province Insurers or Accidents (12:XIII)

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Revision as of 00:20, 20 June 2016 by Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = ICBC}} == A. Conflict of Law Issues == Following ''Tolofson v Jensen'' (1995), 100 BC L R (2d) 1, in Canada, the substantive law to be applied...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search



A. Conflict of Law Issues

Following Tolofson v Jensen (1995), 100 BC L R (2d) 1, in Canada, the substantive law to be applied in torts is the law of the place where the activity occurred, rather than the place where the action is being tried.

When foreign law applies to an action commenced in BC, unless all counsel can agree on the substantive law that applies, counsel seeking to rely on the foreign law has the burden of proof to establish the content of that law. This is often supported by expert opinion evidence in court.

1. Limitation Periods

Subsequent cases have confirmed that limitation laws are generally (but not always) substantive. Students are strongly advised to consult the Supervising Lawyer before offering any advice relating to this, and other, conflict of laws issues.

2. The access of damages

The court in Wong v Wei, (1999), 65 BCL.R. (3d) 222 (SC) drew a distinction between the availability of heads of damage, which is a matter of substantive law, and the assessment or quantification of damages, which is a matter of procedure.

B. Jurisdiction

If an accident occurs outside BC and the defendant(s) resides outside of BC, the issue of jurisdiction should be carefully examined before the limitation period expires in either jurisdiction.

Counsel should keep in mind that a plaintiff has two claims, one in tort and the other against a first party insurer for Part 7 or equivalent) benefits. The jurisdiction issue for the two claims should be considered separately.

The defendant can challenge BC court’s jurisdiction on the basis that the BC court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter at all (i.e. the court lacks jurisdiction simpliciter) or that there is a more convenient jurisdiction within which the case may be heard (i.e. the defendant argues that the BC court is forum non conveniens).