The defendant brought a motion arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims regarding a trust and an Ontario condominium, or alternatively, that Michigan was the more appropriate forum.
The defendant also sought security for costs.
The court found it had jurisdiction because the trust property and alleged breach of fiduciary duty occurred in Ontario.
The court declined to stay the action for forum non conveniens, finding Michigan was not clearly more appropriate.
The request for security for costs was dismissed due to the defendant's delay in bringing the motion.
