Prodensa, a Mexican corporation and defendant by counterclaim, moved to stay the counterclaim against it, arguing lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The counterclaim, brought by Ontario-based Advantage, alleged torts of fraudulent misrepresentation and conversion related to equipment and funds in Mexico, stemming from a "shelter services" arrangement.
The court found jurisdiction simpliciter based on the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, which was deemed to have occurred in Ontario where the false information was received and relied upon.
Additionally, the court found a contract (Memorandum of Understanding) connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.
The court dismissed the forum non conveniens argument, emphasizing the inter-relatedness of the counterclaim with the main action and the risk of conflicting judgments.
Finally, it was determined that no valid arbitration agreement governed the parties' relationship.
The motion was dismissed.
