Canada’s Highest Court has just set for hearing an appeal of Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. from the ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal with regard to the case Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada. Teck Cominco Ltd. (Vancouver) is the largest Canadian mining corporation. The dispute between it and its insurance companies arose because of over coverage claims, when Teck filed a suit in USA and insurers in Canada.

The U.S. court has already accepted jurisdiction over the matter and in Canada Teck moved to stay proceedings based principally on the fact that the court in Washington was already considering the claim. The motion was denied by the British Columbia court but due to the Supreme Court’s decision the issue of jurisdiction is still on the agenda. The mentioned question plays significant role in view of the fact that the disputes involving courts of both states became a usual practice. The future decision of the Supreme Court indisputably will influence further parallel proceedings holding in USA and Canada.

The history of the dispute began in 2004 when the U.S. citizens filed a suit against Teck in Washington court. The claims concerned pollution of the Columbia River by the Teck’s smelter situated in Trail, B.C. (it was the first suit filed by U.S. citizens under the 1980 Superfund law against a foreign company operating on foreign soil). The proceedings have attracted wide spread comment and occasioned an international argument over cross-border enforcement of environmental laws. In 2006 Teck reached an agreement with the U.S. government that required Teck to fund an environmental study.

The current proceedings in USA and Canada relate to the obligations of Teck's insurance companies regarding environmental damage claims: the companies seek a declaration that they did not have to defend or indemnify Teck in respect of such claims.

Considering the practice of the Canada Supreme Court, there were no reasons to agree to hear the appeal, which fact also gives evidence of the situation exceptionality. As a rule, the court does not consider the appeals concerning forum convenience. The bare fact that the court has granted the appeal speaks for its interest in solving this problem. Perhaps the court is going to apply the principle of comity in stay motion cases when the court in another state has already asserted jurisdiction. However the Supreme Court's main objective will be to maintain balance between forum convenience and deference to decisions of foreign courts.