Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over defendant Robert Tetrault is the central issue, as he is a Quebec resident contesting the BC Supreme Court's territorial competence under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA).
• Plaintiff David Cytrynbaum alleges he loaned $600,000 to Dream Wines Corporation in 2005, arranged through Robert Tetrault, who he claims acted as an agent or advisor for the company.
• Whether Robert Tetrault was an agent of Dream Wines is a disputed fact, yet the court found a good arguable case sufficient to establish a presumptive connecting factor under s. 10(h) of the CJPTA.
• Forum non conveniens was raised by Robert Tetrault, who argued Quebec is the more appropriate forum, citing his serious illness, the location of banking records, and the likely application of Quebec law.
• Conflicting accounts exist among the defendants: Eric Tetrault and Dream Wines deny the loan arrangement, while Eric Tetrault's own discovery evidence confirms the funds went to Dream Wines' business.
• Leave to amend the notice of civil claim was also sought and granted, as none of the defendants ultimately opposed it once jurisdiction was retained.

Facts of the case

David Cytrynbaum, a resident of Quebec, commenced an action in the BC Supreme Court against Dream Wines Corporation, its president Eric Tetrault, and Robert (Bob) Tetrault — Eric's father and a fellow Quebec resident. Cytrynbaum and Robert Tetrault had been friends for approximately 40 years. Dream Wines is an Alberta company registered and carrying on business in British Columbia, selling wines to licensees in BC and throughout western Canada; Eric Tetrault is based in BC, as are the majority of the company's employees.

Cytrynbaum alleges that in 2005, Robert Tetrault approached him about making a loan to Dream Wines and that he had not heard of the company before that introduction. He claims to have loaned $600,000 to the defendants following representations made to him, particularly by Robert Tetrault, whom he understood to be acting as an agent or advisor of Dream Wines. In about 2012, Cytrynbaum alleges he again discussed the loan with Robert Tetrault, who told him it would be repaid and that the business was projected to be profitable — representations that led Cytrynbaum to hold off on collecting. Later, when Cytrynbaum was making his will, he asked the defendants to repay the loan; the defendants refused and denied the loan's existence, prompting him to commence the action.

Eric Tetrault and Dream Wines deny being parties to any loan agreement with Cytrynbaum and deny that Robert Tetrault was an employee or advisor of Dream Wines. Their account holds that Eric Tetrault asked Robert Tetrault for a loan for Dream Wines, that Robert Tetrault agreed to provide it, and that it was repaid in full — with no knowledge of whether any funds Robert Tetrault obtained came from Cytrynbaum. Robert Tetrault's response denied all allegations and challenged the court's jurisdiction. All defendants raised a limitation defence.

Statutory and procedural framework

Two procedural applications were before the court. First, Robert Tetrault brought a jurisdiction application under Rule 21-8 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009, seeking a declaration that the BC Supreme Court lacked territorial competence over him, or alternatively that the court should decline jurisdiction in favour of Quebec under s. 11 of the CJPTA. Second, Cytrynbaum sought leave to amend his notice of civil claim under Rule 6-1(1)(b).

The territorial competence analysis turned on s. 3(e) of the CJPTA, which requires a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts on which the proceeding is based. Section 10(h) of the CJPTA provides a presumption of such a connection where the proceeding concerns a business carried on in British Columbia. The forum non conveniens analysis required the court to consider factors under s. 11(2) of the CJPTA, including comparative convenience and expense for the parties, the applicable law, the desirability of avoiding multiple proceedings and conflicting decisions, enforcement of any eventual judgment, and the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.

Court's reasoning and analysis

On territorial competence, Justice Sigurdson found that Cytrynbaum established a good arguable case under s. 10(h) of the CJPTA. The court identified several elements supporting this conclusion: Robert Tetrault used a Dream Wines email address in connection with the loan; Eric Tetrault confirmed on examination for discovery that the funds obtained from Cytrynbaum went to Dream Wines' business; and the inside management rule — which entitles persons dealing with a corporation's agent to assume that agent has authority to act on the company's behalf — was applicable on the pleadings. The court noted that the standard at this stage is not proof on a balance of probabilities, but only that the plaintiff show a good arguable case. Robert Tetrault's own affidavit denying any formal role in Dream Wines was not found sufficient to rebut the presumption.

The court addressed the anti-bootstrapping principle from Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27, which requires that each defendant's connection to the jurisdiction be examined independently. Justice Sigurdson held that this principle did not bar jurisdiction here: the plaintiff's case was not grounded in s. 10(e) (contract made in the province), but in s. 10(h) (business carried on in BC). The connecting factor was not the contract itself, but Robert Tetrault's alleged involvement in a business operating in British Columbia — making the claim about Dream Wines' business the subject matter of the litigation, with Robert Tetrault as an alleged participant in that business.

On forum non conveniens, Robert Tetrault advanced several grounds for preferring Quebec: his serious illness and physical limitations (he had applied for medical assistance in dying), the location of banking records in Quebec, the likely application of Quebec law to the contract, and the need to enforce any judgment in Quebec. Justice Sigurdson was sympathetic to Robert Tetrault's health circumstances but was not persuaded that transferring the proceedings to Quebec would mitigate his suffering or reduce comparative inconvenience. The court noted that his examination for discovery would proceed by video regardless of which court heard the matter. The risk of conflicting decisions across jurisdictions, and the inefficiency of multiplying proceedings when a live BC action was already underway against co-defendants who had attorned to the court's jurisdiction, weighed against declining jurisdiction. Weight was also given to Cytrynbaum's choice of forum.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed both branches of Robert Tetrault's jurisdiction application. Justice Sigurdson held that the BC Supreme Court had territorial competence over Robert Tetrault under s. 10(h) of the CJPTA, and declined to exercise its discretion to transfer the matter to Quebec under s. 11. The amendment application was also granted; with jurisdiction retained, Robert Tetrault did not oppose it, and Eric Tetrault and Dream Wines had consented. Cytrynbaum was the successful party on both applications. No monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered in this decision — the judgment addresses jurisdiction and pleadings only, with the substantive claims remaining to be determined at trial. No exact amount was therefore awarded at this stage.