Harder v. InCor Holdings Limited
Lorne Harder
Law Firm / Organization
Whitelaw Twining (WT BCA LLP)
Springhill Investments Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Whitelaw Twining (WT BCA LLP)
Harder Investments Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Whitelaw Twining (WT BCA LLP)
InCor Holdings Limited
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

George Molyviatis
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

Jocelyn Bennett
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

Pangaea Resources Limited
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

InCor Energy Minerals Limited
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

InCor LeadFX Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

LeadFX Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

InCor Holdings PLC
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

InCor Services Limited
Law Firm / Organization
McMillan LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Shouldice

Facts:
Lorne Harder, Springhill Investments Ltd., and Harder Investments Ltd. (plaintiffs) claimed they advanced $11.5 million in loans to InCor Holdings Limited, George Molyviatis, Jocelyn Bennett, Pangaea Resources Limited, and related entities (defendants). Only $2 million was repaid, leaving the balance allegedly due. The plaintiffs sought recovery based on loan agreements governed by British Columbia law.

Legal Arguments/Issues:
The key issue was whether the British Columbia Supreme Court had territorial competence over three defendants: Pangaea Resources Limited, InCor Services Limited, and LeadFX Inc. The plaintiffs argued for jurisdiction under:

  • Section 3(e) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA), claiming a real and substantial connection between the dispute and British Columbia.
  • Section 3(b) of the CJPTA, asserting that the defendants had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing a response.

The defendants challenged this, particularly arguing that some entities were not parties to the loan contracts.

Decision:
The court found a real and substantial connection with British Columbia due to contractual obligations performed or governed under B.C. law. The defendants’ filing of responses to the claim constituted submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

Costs:
The court dismissed the defendants' jurisdictional challenge and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the cause, though the exact amount was not specified.

Outcome:
The plaintiffs successfully retained British Columbia jurisdiction over the defendants, allowing the case to proceed in the B.C. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S237204
Civil litigation
Plaintiff