In the case of Trends Electronics International Inc. v Dana Innovations dated August 18, 2023, the plaintiff, Trends Electronics International Inc., was a distributor of audio, video, and lighting products. They had sought a declaration that British Columbia was the appropriate jurisdiction for their claims against the defendant, Dana Innovations. The dispute had arisen when Dana terminated Trends' long-standing distribution of its products in Canada. Dana, headquartered in California, had argued for litigation in California based on a recent dismissal of a related case against Trends in the United States District Court. Trends had built Dana's brand in Canada, contributing to a revenue increase from $250,000 in 1995 to a projected $4.436 million in 2022. Dana's termination of the distributorship had led to a conflict over the interpretation of their 1997 Agreement, which had contained a California choice of law and jurisdiction clause. Dana had claimed the agreement was still in force until the termination, while Trends had argued it expired in 1999. Dana's termination had triggered various claims. It had claimed Trends breached the agreement by engaging with competitors, failing to service the market, and not paying for goods. The dispute had escalated when Dana had offered predatory pricing to Trends' customers. The judge had found ambiguity in the agreement's renewal clause and had concluded that both parties' claims were substantially similar. Despite defendant's efforts, the court had decided to maintain jurisdiction over the case.