How have the courts treated the issue of territorial competence?

The defendant concedes that its argument on the issue of territorial competence is not strong. Essentially, the defendant raised the issue in its application in order to comply with the decision in O’Brien v. Simard, 2006 BCCA 410, which held that a defendant must first challenge the court’s territorial competence pursuant to Rule 21-8 before it can invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Although the defendant argued in its application that the circumstances listed under s. 10 did not apply to this case, counsel did not press the point strongly in oral submissions.