2 total
Ontario found to be the most convenient forum despite a non-exclusive Massachusetts jurisdiction clause.
The plaintiff, Savanta Inc., and co-defendant GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI), brought a motion to stay portions of the defendants' counterclaim and for Savanta to discontinue parts of its statement of claim.
The motion was based on a forum selection clause in a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) that Savanta argued required disputes to be adjudicated in Massachusetts.
The defendants, Thomas and Teresa Hilditch, contended that Savanta had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court.
The court found the SPA's jurisdiction clause to be "non-exclusive" meaning it did not preclude Ontario from adjudicating the disputes.
Applying the Muscutt factors for forum non conveniens, the court determined that Ontario was the most convenient forum for all issues, emphasizing the risk of multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions if the matters were split between Ontario and Massachusetts.
The motion to stay or discontinue was denied, and the plaintiff and GEI were ordered to pay costs to the defendants.
The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend its statement of claim, finding triable issues regarding the discoverability of new financial misconduct claims.
The plaintiff, Mohawk Ford Sales (1996) Limited (MF), brought a motion for leave to amend its Statement of Claim to plead new causes of action and related amendments concerning alleged misconduct by the defendant, Marc Jewiss.
The defendants argued the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, asserting MF had discovered the claims earlier than alleged.
The court found that MF rebutted the presumption of actual knowledge at the time of the alleged conduct and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the additional claims through internal reviews.
The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim, allowing the defendants to plead additional limitations defences.
