Jeffrey Percival

This is an appeal from a motion judge's dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction, specifically finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The appellants, Ontario-incorporated companies, argued the motion judge erred in the jurisdictional analysis and improperly conducted a disguised summary judgment/issue determination motion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the respondents, domiciled outside Ontario with business primarily in Singapore, lacked a sufficient connection to Ontario.

The court found the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of torts or contract breaches occurring in Ontario, or to rebut the presumption against jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The moving defendants sought an order striking portions of the statement of claim under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged former employees and related entities misappropriated architectural drawings and used them to obtain contracts.

The court held that breach of contract claims against certain corporate and individual defendants must be struck because no contractual relationship existed.

Claims for breach of confidence against two corporate defendants controlled by a former employee were allowed to proceed, but claims against another individual and his business were deficient and required amendment or would be struck.

Paragraphs referring to findings of the Ontario Association of Architects Complaints Committee were struck as prejudicial and inadmissible.