Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Court considered whether an interlocutory order in a pre-certification class action ruling was appealable under the Court of Appeal Act.

• At issue was whether common issues alone could establish territorial competence over an out-of-province defendant.

• The chambers judge had deferred final jurisdictional determinations to the certification hearing, declining to issue a binding decision.

• The appeal was quashed because the order did not determine any substantive or procedural rights and was not appealable.

• Leave to appeal was also refused on the basis that the appeal would not resolve the plaintiff’s substantive concerns.

• The Court reiterated that interlocutory rulings must await final decisions before becoming appealable to prevent fragmented litigation.

Background and context
In Cline v. Fédération de Gymnastique du Québec, 2025 BCCA 132, Amelia Cline brought a proposed national class action on behalf of gymnasts across Canada who alleged they were physically, sexually, or psychologically abused while participating in gymnastics programs. The named defendants included Gymnastics Canada and its provincial counterparts, including the Fédération de Gymnastique du Québec (the Fédération). Cline alleged that the defendants created and perpetuated the systemic conditions that allowed the abuse to occur.

Jurisdictional application and Supreme Court ruling
A key procedural issue arose regarding whether the Supreme Court of British Columbia had territorial competence over the Fédération for claims advanced by proposed class members who resided outside of B.C. and had no gymnastics involvement within the province. The Fédération brought an application under Rule 21-8 for a declaration that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over these claims (referred to as those of the “Ex Juris Fédération Gymnasts”).

The plaintiff initially agreed that the Fédération’s jurisdictional challenge could be heard before class certification but later objected when it became clear that the application would only partially address the issue. Justice Forth heard the application and issued an order allowing a bifurcated approach: some jurisdictional issues were decided, while others were deferred to the certification hearing. The judge ruled that common issues alone did not establish a real and substantial connection to B.C. but deferred making a final jurisdictional determination pending additional evidence.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal
The plaintiff sought to appeal the procedural order, arguing that the legal reasoning adopted by Justice Forth would prejudice national class actions and impact the certification process. She also argued that if leave to appeal were necessary, it should be granted.

Justice Harris, sitting in Chambers at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ruled that the order was not appealable. He held that appeals are only permitted from orders that determine substantive or procedural rights, and the ruling at issue was an interim procedural step without any final determination of rights. Because no definitive ruling on jurisdiction had been made, there was no appealable “order” under the Court of Appeal Act.

Leave to appeal application
Even assuming that the order was appealable with leave, Justice Harris denied the leave application. He reasoned that granting leave would not resolve the plaintiff’s substantive concerns. The plaintiff’s real issue—the legal correctness of the view that common issues alone cannot ground jurisdiction—would still have to wait until the certification hearing when the Court would be asked to issue a final jurisdictional ruling.

Conclusion
The Court quashed the appeal and stated that it would be inappropriate to entertain piecemeal appeals from interim rulings in complex class action proceedings. Final determinations must be made before appellate review is available. The case will proceed to the certification hearing, where the outstanding territorial competence issues will be revisited in full.