Munaf Mohamed

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.

The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.

The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for a stay of a lower court order that found Ontario had jurisdiction over a complex fraud action involving alleged misappropriation of billions of dollars by a former Saudi cabinet minister and related entities.

The motion judge had established jurisdiction on five grounds, including contracts made in Ontario, a gift deed executed in Ontario, assets in Ontario, acts of conspiracy in Ontario, and a real and substantial connection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, particularly because the plaintiffs provided an undertaking not to assert attornment if the defendants participated in the Mareva injunction proceedings.

The court clarified that court-ordered participation or participation under such an undertaking generally does not constitute voluntary submission to jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiffs due to the risk of asset dissipation.