Yola Ventresca

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a corporate defendant, retain a placeholder defendant, and delete certain words.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding that the addition of the corporate defendant was a correction of a misnomer rather than the addition of a new party after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue or that their claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty would fail.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to dismiss or stay the respondents' action for breach of contract and misuse of confidential information.

The appellants argued the action was barred by issue estoppel due to a Pennsylvania court order, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Pennsylvania court did not decide the choice of law issue, the appellants had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction, the real and substantial connection test was met, and Ontario was the convenient forum.