JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGES
Cryptocurrency exchanges represent a key target for production (Norwich) orders and freezing (Mareva) orders in crypto litigation. Many exchanges are foreign corporations with no physical presence in Canada and presence-based jurisdiction over these exchanges cannot be established. A Canadian court can, however, assume jurisdiction over these foreign exchanges on the basis of a non-passive virtual presence in the jurisdiction. A recent decision of Justice Elwood of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Wang v Binance Holdings Ltd.[1] provides insight into what constitutes a sufficient virtual presence of an exchange for the sake of establishing in personam jurisdiction over it.
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda left the question open as to when e-trade in the jurisdiction would amount to a presence in the jurisdiction.[2] In Google v. Equustek,[3] the SCC upheld the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision,[4] finding in personam jurisdiction over Google despite it not having a physical presence in British Columbia. The Court of Appeal found Google had a sufficient virtual presence in British Columbia, mainly on the basis of Google gathering British Columbian user information and using it to sell targeted advertising back to these users.
In Wang v Binance Holdings Ltd. the British Columbia Supreme Court found in favour of the applicant for a production order and a preservation order against two cryptocurrency exchanges. One of the exchanges, Binance, had withdrawn from the Canadian marketplace in 2023, before the material times, and jurisdiction over Binance was a question for the Court. Justice Elwood, relying on Google v. Equustek, found that Binance has sufficient virtual presence in British Columbia, as a resident of the province at the material times could download the Binance app, create accounts, and deposit and trade crypto on the Binance platform.[5]
Over the last few years, numerous exchanges have either left Canada or have been “kicked out”, related mostly to changing securities laws. As such, the Wang v Binance Holdings Ltd. decision has the potential to inform a large number of future jurisdictional disputes in the crypto sphere.
[1] Wang v. Binance Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCSC 425.
[2] Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 at para. 87.
[3] Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34.
[4] Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc., 2015 BCCA 265 at paras. 51-56.
[5] Wang v. Binance Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCSC 425 at paras. 12-14.
