Does jurisdiction simpliciter need to be established?

As noted above, Cook v. Parcel (supra) provides that jurisdiction simpliciter may be established by proof of a real and substantial connection between either the defendant or the subject matter of the litigation.

As to any connection of Newmont to British Columbia, the plaintiff has adduced evidence which establishes that Newmont has two subsidiary companies which operate in British Columbia and have some common directors and officers with Newmont. I am satisfied that common directorship alone also does not establish a real and substantial connection to this province: Cook v. Parcel (supra). The plaintiff also asserts that the June 8, 1998 letter on Newmont's letterhead is proof that Newmont involves itself directly in matters which would normally be in the province of its subsidiaries. In my judgment, it is speculative at best to assume that Newmont may operate in British Columbia by becoming directly involved in the actions of its subsidiaries in this jurisdiction. I am also satisfied that ownership of shares in a British Columbia subsidiary, even if that subsidiary is a valuable asset, is not without more a sufficiently real or substantial connection to British Columbia to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over Newmont by this court. Rule 13(1)(m) has no application in this proceeding.