Aaron Challis

The plaintiff, a surety company, brought a motion for summary judgment to compel the defendant, a personal representative of an estate, to post collateral under an indemnity agreement.

The defendant had breached his fiduciary duty by improperly distributing estate funds to maternal heirs, failing to investigate paternal heirs' claims, and not complying with a Michigan probate court's disgorgement order.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the indemnity agreement clear and rejecting the defendant's defenses of *non est factum* and relief from forfeiture due to his carelessness and unreasonable conduct.

The appellant brought four related actions against various respondents arising from dealings that occurred primarily in the United States between 2001 and 2016.

The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the actions on the ground that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a real and substantial connection to the province.

The motion judges granted the motions and dismissed all actions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ontario jurisdiction existed based on: (1) consulting contracts allegedly entered into at Toronto airport; (2) products being advertised, marketed, and distributed in Ontario; and (3) respondents carrying on business in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and affirming that mere advertising or distribution through third-party retailers does not constitute carrying on business in the jurisdiction.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, citing enforceable forum selection clauses, a lack of real and substantial connection between the litigation and Ontario, and abuse of process due to prior arbitration and litigation in California concerning the same subject matter.

The plaintiffs, largely self-represented, opposed the motion.

The court found that the forum selection clauses were valid and enforceable, Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as no presumptive connecting factors were established, and allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process given the prior resolutions in California.

The action was dismissed, and a sealing order was granted to protect confidential commercial information.