You Can Work Here, But Can You Sue Here?

Update by Louis Claman, Lawyer

The rise of remote work has made it easier than ever for Canadian workers to provide services to foreign companies from within Canada. However, working from British Columbia does not, by itself, mean that a British Columbia court will have jurisdiction over a resulting employment or contractor dispute.

In Armstrong v. AirCFO, LLC, 2026 BCSC 1142, the plaintiff was a Certified Professional Accountant (CPA) who performed work remotely for a United States company from his home in British Columbia. Despite that physical connection to British Columbia, the Court found that the substance of the contractual relationship was centred in the United States, and that Ohio was the more appropriate forum for the dispute. In its reasons, the Court provides a helpful summary of the law governing jurisdictional challenges in employment claims, while also clarifying how those principles apply in the increasingly common context of remote work.

Background

The plaintiff, Matthew Armstrong, resided and was registered as a CPA in British Columbia. He alleged that he had been employed by AirCFO, LLC, a company incorporated in Ohio, and that he had been dismissed without reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice.

AirCFO provided accounting, finance, human resources, and tax services to venture-backed startup companies operating in the United States. Its client base was located across the United States, and it did not provide services directly to Canadian companies, although it provided services indirectly to some companies with Canadian subsidiaries.

Mr. Armstrong was also the principal of a Canadian numbered company. AirCFO entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Armstrong’s numbered company on January 25, 2021, under which accounting services were provided to AirCFO’s U.S.-based customers. The consulting agreement described an independent contractor relationship between the parties and contained a clause choosing that Ohio law would apply (though this was not a forum selection clause).

The business relationship ended abruptly on May 31, 2024. Mr. Armstrong commenced a wrongful dismissal action in British Columbia on April 3, 2025. AirCFO responded by disputing the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Supreme Court and, in the alternative, arguing that British Columbia was not the appropriate forum.

Decision

In this decision, the Court considered whether British Columbia had territorial competence over the dispute under the BC Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and, if so, whether the Court should nevertheless decline jurisdiction on the basis that another forum was clearly more appropriate.

Territorial Competence

The Court found that there was not a sufficient real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts on which the proceeding was based. While Mr. Armstrong performed his work remotely from British Columbia, the Court held that this connection was incidental to the substance of the contractual obligations. Those obligations involved providing financial and tax services to U.S.-based clients through a U.S.-based company.

The Court’s analysis reflects the reality that remote work is now common, and that a worker’s physical location is not necessarily determinative of where a contractual or employment-related dispute should be heard.

Choice of Law and Contractual Context

The consulting agreement contained an Ohio governing law clause. Although the parties agreed that this was not a forum selection clause, the Court considered the clause relevant to the broader jurisdictional and forum analysis. It supported the conclusion that the parties’ relationship was more closely connected to Ohio and the United States than to British Columbia.

Forum Non Conveniens

Even if British Columbia had jurisdiction, the Court found that Ohio was the more appropriate forum. The majority of AirCFO’s witnesses and operations were located in the United States, and the defendant’s business and client relationships were U.S.-centred.

The Court also considered the plaintiff’s preference to litigate in British Columbia, including the possible availability of more favourable remedies under British Columbia employment legislation. The Court characterized this as forum shopping and found that it weighed against British Columbia exercising jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court did not permit the action to proceed in British Columbia. The proceeding was stayed in favour of Ohio as the more appropriate forum for resolving the dispute.

Key Take Away for Employees and Contractors

Employees and contractors who work remotely from British Columbia for foreign companies should not assume that they can sue in British Columbia simply because they performed their work here. Courts will look at the substance of the relationship, including where the company is based, where its clients and witnesses are located, what law governs the agreement, and where the contractual obligations are most closely connected.

Workers should pay close attention to governing-law clauses, contractor language, corporate contracting structures, and any forum-related provisions before entering cross-border service arrangements. These terms may significantly affect where disputes must be litigated and what remedies may be available.

Key Take Away for Employers

Foreign employers and businesses engaging Canadian-based remote workers should not assume that allowing someone to work from British Columbia will automatically subject them to British Columbia litigation. However, jurisdictional risk remains fact-specific.

Employers should ensure that cross-border agreements clearly address governing law, forum, contractor or employment status, reporting structure, client location, payment arrangements, and the nature of the services being provided. Where the business intends that disputes be resolved outside British Columbia, a clear forum selection clause should be considered in addition to a choice of law clause.

This decision is helpful for foreign companies defending claims brought in British Columbia by remote workers, but it should not be read as creating a blanket rule. A British Columbia court may reach a different result where the employer actively carries on business in British Columbia, serves British Columbia clients, recruits specifically into British Columbia, exercises management control in British Columbia, or there is otherwise a strong connection between the province and the dispute.

‍ ‍