The defendant moved to stay an Ontario action on the basis that Vermont was the more appropriate forum for a dispute arising from an allegedly unpaid US$3.5 million promissory note connected to hotel investments in Vermont and New Hampshire.
The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendant resided in Ontario, triggering a presumptive connecting factor under the framework established in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.
The defendant failed to rebut the presumption or demonstrate that Vermont was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The court emphasized that both parties resided in Ontario, the alleged default occurred in Ontario, the defendant’s assets were located in Ontario, and requiring the plaintiff to litigate in Vermont would create unfairness because he was barred from entering the United States.
The motion to stay the Ontario proceeding was dismissed.