Can a case be suitably tried in the Kyrgyz Republic?

In Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anomin Sirketi v. Kyrgyz Republic, 2012 ONSC 4351, the court found the defendant had not demonstrated the Republic was the clearly more appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter. The issue was whether disputed shares were exigible to satisfy a judgment the plaintiff had obtained. As a result, the court did not make any specific finding about whether the case could be suitably tried in the Republic's courts for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice.

In Huang v. Silvercorp Metals Inc., the plaintiff, who was a Canadian citizen, commenced an action alleging the defendant and its subsidiary had engaged in misconduct and wrongful acts towards him. In particular, he alleged the defendant had committed the torts of false imprisonment and defamation. The plaintiff had been detained, investigated and imprisoned in China. The defendant conceded the court had jurisdiction simpliciter and was the more appropriate forum in which to try the defamation action. The defendant sought to have the court exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction to determine the issue of whether there had been a false imprisonment on the basis that China was the more appropriate forum in which to litigate those allegations. The evidence was that the plaintiff was prohibited from travelling to China to prosecute his claim. As well, the plaintiff could not sue for false imprisonment in China as there was no such tort. The defendant’s position would have entailed proceedings in both China and British Columbia concerning essentially the same matter. In the circumstances, the court found the defendant had not established that China was the clearly more appropriate forum and dismissed defendant’s application.