{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013671875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009765625, 'mean_word_length': 5.137724550898204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2010 / Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international privé en 2010

The plaintiffs brought a class action in British Columbia against a number of defendants based in the United States and Norway, alleging that they were parties to a global price-fixing conspiracy to lessen competition and inflate prices for the roll-on, roll-off marine shipment of vehicles. This was alleged to have resulted in higher prices paid for vehicles sold in British Columbia. The defendants applied to have the proceedings against them stayed or dismissed on the basis that the BC court lacked territorial competence under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA).1 The Court of Appeal affirmed the chambers judge’s decision that the court had territorial competence because there was a real and substantial connection between the province and the facts giving rise to the proceeding.2 The defendants did not contest that they were parties to the alleged conspiracy,