The appellants (UDG) appealed a motion judge's decision to permanently stay their Ontario proceeding in favour of ongoing litigation in Singapore and Dubai.
UDG had commenced the Ontario action seeking declarations against the respondents (TAP), effectively advancing as claims the same allegations they made as defences in the foreign proceedings.
The motion judge found that a related loan involving Rutmet was distinct from UDG's loans and that UDG's Ontario action was an attempt to gain a jurisdictional advantage.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her fact-finding, exercise of discretion, or analysis of attornment and forum selection clauses.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Ontario proceedings remained stayed.
