Background: This case involves a lawsuit against Altria Group Inc. ("Altria"), an American corporation, and other defendants related to the marketing and sale of JUUL e-cigarettes. The plaintiffs, Jaycen Stephens and Owen Mann-Campbell, allege that the defendants falsely marketed JUUL as a safe alternative to smoking, which led to adverse health conditions among users, including themselves. They seek class action certification for Canadian users who suffered damages due to JUUL.

Jurisdictional Challenge: Altria challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the British Columbia courts, arguing that it should not be subject to litigation in British Columbia due to its limited involvement with JUUL in Canada. The chambers judge dismissed Altria’s challenge, finding sufficient ties to British Columbia to establish jurisdiction, particularly through allegations of a conspiracy involving Altria and the JUUL Defendants.

Court of Appeal Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge made no error in concluding that British Columbia courts have jurisdiction over Altria in this proceeding. The judgment emphasized that even without direct business activities in British Columbia, Altria's alleged involvement in marketing strategies could constitute a tort committed in the province, thereby establishing a presumption of jurisdiction under British Columbia's Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Analysis: The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court's application of the jurisdictional analysis framework, noting the plaintiffs established a good arguable case that the claims against Altria concern a tort committed in British Columbia. Altria's appeal arguments, claiming a lack of direct connection to British Columbia and distinguishing between different types of claims and evidence, were not persuasive enough to overturn the presumption of jurisdiction.

No financial terms were specified.