The plaintiff brought an action in Ontario against Ontario and non-Ontario defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of mining opportunities in Peru.
The non-Ontario defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on jurisdictional and forum non conveniens grounds, and challenged the validity of service ex juris.
The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Ontario was the appropriate forum, and that service ex juris was valid.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, clarifying that the real and substantial connection test is the exclusive framework for determining assumed jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants, subsuming remedy-specific tests.
