Montreal lawyer beats back Palestinian attempt to sue in Quebec

Judge affirms confidence in the impartiality and fairness of Israel’s High Court of Justice

By Beryl Wajsman, Editor

When residents of a Palestinian farming village called Bil’in in the West Bank sued two Canadian companies for allegedly violating international law by building condominiums for Israeli settlers in the area it made headlines around the world. The reason for the headlines was that they sued in the jurisdiction where the companies were incorporated. And that place happened to be here in Montreal.

They applied to Quebec’s Superior Court to gain standing here arguing that Quebec courts had jurisdiction because the companies — Green Park International Inc. and Green Mountain International — are based in Montreal. Bil’in also wanted its lawsuit to be considered given Canada’s War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act.

Many viewed this as a publicity stunt. Particularly in light of the fact that Israeli courts have often ruled in favour of Palestinian land claims. It was the Israeli Supreme Court that first demanded that Israel change the route of the Security Wall in several places to accommodate West Bank Palestinians. Though Israeli institutions are rarely given credit in international media for even-handedness, that decision came down long before international tribunals heard Palestinian complaints on the same issue.

DeGranpre Chait partner Ronald H. Levy represented the Montreal companies. He succeeded in convincing the Superior Court that the Bi’lin gambit should be dismissed. And, in what has been called a victory for reason and common sense, Quebec Superior Court Justice Louis-Paul Cullen did just that in his recent decision.

In rejecting the lawsuit Justice Cullen ruled that it was an inappropriate case for a Canadian court. He said Israel’s High Court of Justice “is the logical forum, and the authority in a better position to decide” on the complaint.

Bil’in had alleged that its case would not get a fair hearing in an Israeli court because the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank is politically sensitive. But Cullen wrote that the residents should have asked the Israeli court to consider their complaint in light of the Geneva Convention and International law. He went even further, implicitly highlighting the quality of justice in Israeli courts.

The plaintiffs had argued that applying Israeli laws to a West Bank dispute would be “inconsistent with public order as understood in international relations.” But during the three days of hearings last June, Levy argued that the legal action was not legitimate because an Israeli court had already ruled the disputed land did not belong to the villagers. Levy’s arguments in support of this contention not only convinced Cullen but led the Justice to conclude that “the HCJ is an independent tribunal that would act fairly and impartially on any claim the plaintiffs would bring before it.”

He went on in unequivocal terms that “Having examined all the HCJ judgments filed in the record, the court is convinced that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would not perceive the situation otherwise.”

Bil’in was seeking $2 million in damages, and requested an injunction to demolish apartment buildings already built in Moddin Illit, a settlement northwest of Ramallah. But Justice Cullen rejected that claim, stating in strong language that though the plaintiffs claim to have come here to “seek justice”, allowing the action to go ahead “would hardly lead to a just result.”

Justice Cullen also concluded that the plaintiffs were, “for all intents and purposes just forum shopping” and that such legal maneuvering should be “discouraged.” Cullen wrote that what was decisive for him was that the plaintiffs were attempting an “abusive or vexatious election of forum.” Based on “order and fairness” Justice Cullen concluded that the case should be tried before the Israeli High Court of Justice and not Quebec.

Cullen dismissed the action “with costs.”