Remote worker can sue Angus Reid Group in Nova Scotia despite B.C. court clause

A remote worker can pursue his wrongful-dismissal lawsuit against Angus Reid Group Inc. in Nova Scotia, despite an employment agreement pointing to British Columbia courts, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has ruled.

In Reynolds v. Angus Reid Group Inc., 2026 NSSC 165, dated May 15, 2026, Justice Muise dismissed the company’s request to stay the proceeding. The company had not established that British Columbia was clearly the more appropriate place for the lawsuit. It must pay Spencer Reynolds $1,000 in costs.

The ruling settles where this proceeding may continue. It does not decide whether Reynolds is entitled to additional dismissal compensation or determine the amount of any damages.

Remote work created a substantial local connection

Angus Reid Group, a federally incorporated company based in British Columbia, initially engaged Reynolds as an independent contractor while he lived in Ontario. He later moved to Nova Scotia and continued contracting before becoming an employee.

Before accepting the employment offer, Reynolds secured the company’s agreement that he could work remotely from Nova Scotia. He performed his daily work and reporting there, travelling to Ontario only for occasional offsite meetings. After being dismissed without cause, he sued for wrongful dismissal.

The employment contract selected British Columbia law and said the parties accepted the jurisdiction of that province’s courts. Both sides agreed, however, that this court clause was non-exclusive. Both also accepted that Nova Scotia and British Columbia had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The company therefore had to show why the Nova Scotia court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Under Nova Scotia’s Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, the assessment includes convenience and expense, applicable law, judgment enforcement and the fair and efficient operation of the legal system. The alternative forum must be clearly more appropriate.

Travel costs mattered on both sides

The company had no office or business operations in Nova Scotia. Its connection to the province was Reynolds’s remote work. It expected six witnesses from British Columbia, Ontario and Connecticut, and estimated more than $25,000 in travel, accommodation and meal expenses for its witnesses.

The judge considered that estimate reasonable if all witnesses attended in person. But some could likely testify virtually, and two of the six would face significant travel expenses even if the trial took place in British Columbia.

The judge also recognized the company’s concern that travel costs could pressure it to settle regardless of the merits, and that a British Columbia hearing would require fewer people to travel.

Reynolds, meanwhile, had limited financial resources following his dismissal. Although sending him and his lawyer to British Columbia would involve fewer travellers, the expense risked discouraging him from pursuing the claim. The judge found that forcing a national corporate employer to defend the case in Nova Scotia did not create the same access-to-justice concern.

The court also rejected the company’s allegation of forum shopping. Reynolds had previously started and discontinued a similar Ontario action. The judge accepted his explanation for that procedural history and found a genuine Nova Scotia connection: he had lived and worked there throughout his employment, and that was where the alleged wrongful dismissal arose.

The contract clause retained some weight

The non-exclusive wording did not make the British Columbia clause irrelevant. It expressed an intention that contractual disputes be heard there and weighed in the company’s favour.

But the employment relationship reduced its force. While Reynolds had negotiated permission to work remotely, the judge considered it more likely than not that he had no meaningful ability to negotiate a different court clause in the standard-form employment letter. The employer also knew where he worked and could have anticipated a Nova Scotia lawsuit following dismissal.

The judge gave the clause moderate weight rather than treating it as decisive. Because it was non-exclusive, Reynolds did not have to satisfy the separate strong-cause test for overriding an exclusive forum-selection clause.

British Columbia contract law remained relevant, while the court accepted that Nova Scotia’s statutory labour protections applied to work performed there. The judge considered the alleged statutory inconsistencies potentially irrelevant on the available record, while leaving the ultimate assessment to the trial judge. The reasons did not finally resolve the employment agreement’s enforceability or dismissal entitlements. Reciprocal judgment-enforcement legislation also meant enforcement outside Nova Scotia did not favour either forum.

Overall, both provinces were appropriate places to hear the dispute, but British Columbia had not been shown to be clearly better. The result turns on the remote-working arrangement, the non-exclusive clause and the evidence about practical access to justice; it does not establish that every remote employee may disregard a contractual court clause.

The $1,000 costs award was the maximum within the applicable motion tariff range. The judge declined to multiply that range because dismissing the stay motion did not determine the entire lawsuit, and there was no detailed fee breakdown supporting an increase or a replacement lump-sum award.