## Facts

- Approximately 194 workers or dependants alleged injury or death from asbestos exposure and sued several asbestos manufacturers and suppliers in Texas for negligence, including failure to warn.
- Most claimants were residents of British Columbia at the relevant times; some resided in other Canadian provinces and Washington State.
- The defendants were largely U.S.-based companies; several carried on manufacturing business in Texas, and none had significant connections with British Columbia.
- The Texas court assumed jurisdiction and refused to stay the action on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The defendants then sought an anti-suit injunction in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to restrain continuation of the Texas litigation, asserting British Columbia (or Canada) was the more appropriate forum and that the Texas action was abusive.
- The British Columbia Supreme Court enjoined British Columbia–domiciled plaintiffs and the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) from proceeding in Texas, but struck the defendants’ separate abuse of process claim.
- After the Canadian injunction, the Texas court issued an order permitting the plaintiffs to proceed in Texas notwithstanding the Canadian injunction.
- The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the anti-suit injunction, and the claimants (including the WCB, which had subrogated interests in most claims) appealed.

## Issues

1. Under what conditions may a Canadian court grant an anti-suit injunction restraining parties before it from litigating in a foreign court?
2. What role do international comity and respect for the foreign court’s jurisdictional determination play in deciding whether to enjoin the foreign proceedings?
3. Must the domestic court find the foreign forum is “clearly inappropriate” (or the foreign suit is oppressive or vexatious), or is it enough that the domestic forum is more appropriate?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the anti-suit injunction.
- The Court held that an anti-suit injunction is exceptional relief and requires a showing that the foreign forum is clearly inappropriate or that continuation of the foreign action would be oppressive or vexatious.
- The lower courts erred by effectively treating the inquiry as whether British Columbia was the more appropriate forum and by insufficiently respecting the Texas court’s decision to retain the case.
- Texas could not be characterized as a clearly inappropriate forum on the record; both Texas and British Columbia had meaningful connections to the dispute.
- The plaintiffs’ pursuit of perceived procedural or substantive advantages in Texas did not, by itself, justify injunctive restraint.

## Legal Principles

- Anti-suit injunctions operate in personam but, in practical effect, impugn the foreign court’s assumption of jurisdiction; they must be granted sparingly in light of comity.
- A domestic court should not use an anti-suit injunction to re-litigate the foreign court’s forum non conveniens analysis; the threshold is higher than “more convenient” or “more appropriate.”
- The proper test is whether the foreign proceeding is oppressive or vexatious, or whether the foreign forum is clearly inappropriate for the dispute.
- As a general matter, respect for comity favors allowing the foreign court to address the appropriateness of its jurisdiction before a domestic court restrains a party from continuing abroad.
- The pursuit of “juridical advantages” in a chosen forum is not, without more, a basis for an anti-suit injunction; the focus is on connections to the dispute and fairness, not advantage-seeking.
- The existence of a domestic compensation regime and a subrogated public insurer may strengthen domestic connections but does not, without the required threshold showing, render the foreign forum clearly inappropriate.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the British Columbia anti-suit injunction, holding that comity and the exceptional nature of the remedy require proof that the Texas proceedings were oppressive or vexatious or that Texas was clearly inappropriate, not merely that British Columbia was a better forum.


Amchem Prods. Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Comp. Bd.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 (Can.)