Jamal v. Westjet Airlines Ltd., 2019 BCPC 135

Citation: Jamal v. Westjet Airlines Ltd. 2019 BCPC 135 Date: 20190617 File No: C23089 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: BAHADURALI JAMAL CLAIMANT AND: WESTJET AIRLINES LTD. ABBOTSFORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CITY OF ABBOTSFORD DEFENDANT ORAL RULING RE JURISDICTION (Re Westjet Airlines Ltd.) OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. BROWN

Counsel for the Claimant: J. Loeb Counsel for the Defendant: N. PimentelPlace of Hearing: Abbotsford, B.C.Date of Hearing: June 17, 2019Date of Judgment: June 17, 2019 [1] THE COURT: This is my preliminary ruling in a file entitled Bahadurali Jamal v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., file 23089. The trialhas not yet formally commenced. Although I have heard submissions, I have not heard any evidence. [2] The issue really today is jurisdiction, not only my jurisdiction but jurisdiction to follow any ruling or decision I would maketoday. [3] The claimant, Mr.

Jamal, is suing the defendant, WestJet, on an issue of what could be described as a slip and fall, whileexiting the rear of an airplane, on October 2, 2016. [4] The claimant here is seeking to run a trial on the issue of liability in small claims court. In fact, from what little I can tell fromthe court record, it was previously directed that there be a trial on liability and, possibly, a second trial on quantum. [5] However, the claimant is wanting to leave open the possibility that, following my decision, he could seek transfer of this file toSupreme Court using Rule 7.1.

In other words, because the claim could possibly exceed $25,000, the claimant's course of action may beto transfer the file following my ruling on liability. My ruling on liability would just deal with percentages of fault and not specificnumbers, per se. [6] I have decided I do not have jurisdiction to engage in such a process.

If the matter starts here, in my view, it stays here inProvincial Court for quantum as well. [7] Rule 3(1) clearly indicates that the Provincial Court has jurisdiction in a claim for damages if the amount claimed is equal to,or less than, the amount prescribed by regulation, excluding interest and costs. That amount is currently $35,000. [8] If there is a likelihood that the claim exceeds that jurisdiction, then Rule 7.1 can be used to transfer the claim to SupremeCourt.

It is true that the rule allows for a transfer at any time but, in my view, I ought not to be hearing a trial where I know in advancethat there is a likelihood the claim will exceed our jurisdiction. [9] Cases, such as Ruttan v. Paterson, [1996] BCJ No 354, make it clear that I can hear a personal injury claim so long as theclaimant abandons any amount in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the court. In my view, the court cannot wait on that election.That election needs to be made now. [10] I also believe that my reasoning follows an older case of March v.

Flag Chevrolet Oldsmobile, (BC SC).There, the defendants applied for a dismissal of the plaintiff’s action. The plaintiff had already established the defendant's liability in anaction brought in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, in small claims. He sought, in this action, to have the issue of quantum heardin the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. [11] The plaintiff had attorned to the jurisdiction of small claims court and the issue of quantum could only be settled by agreementbetween the parties, or by further hearing in small claims court.

The monetary jurisdiction of small claims court at the time was then$3,000, and the plaintiff was deemed to have abandoned all claims in excess of that amount. [12] Here, I am not deeming that the claimant has elected anything yet, but if the trial goes ahead, in my view, it would be on theclear understanding that any claim about quantum would also be held in this court. [13] That is my ruling. (RULING RE JURISDICTION CONCLUDED)