The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario, sued the defendant, an Iranian national, for damages arising from his alleged abduction and torture in Iran.
The defendant brought a motion to stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing England was the more appropriate forum.
The motion judge dismissed the motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge made factual errors regarding the defendant's ability to enter Canada and the procedural advantages of litigating in England.
The Court concluded that England was clearly the more appropriate forum, as the defendant had no connection to Ontario, both parties had connections to England, and most witnesses resided outside Canada.
The appeal was allowed and the Ontario action was stayed.
