COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Zhang v. Hua Hai Li Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 103

DATE: 20130219

DOCKET: C55865

Armstrong, Blair and Pepall JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Zheng Zhang

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Hua Hai Li Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., Renjie Zhang, Ruqiu Zhang, Jiaming Zhang and Yumin Yang

Defendants (Appellants)

Edward F. Hung, for the appellants

Christopher P. Goldson, for the respondent

Heard: February 1, 2013

On appeal from the order of Justice S. M. Stevenson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 26, 2012.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an appeal from the order of Justice S.M. Stevenson dated July 26, 2012, which dismissed the motion of the personal defendants challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try this action.

[2] At the time that the action was commenced, the plaintiff (respondent) resided in Ontario. The personal defendants (the appellants) reside in Ontario and were served in Ontario with the statement of claim. They still reside here.

[3] The motion judge held that the court had jurisdiction over this case in accordance with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17. She also concluded that the proper forum was Ontario.

[4] The appellants submit that the case concerns the entitlement to the assets of the corporate defendant, a Chinese company, that carried on business in China and accordingly only the Chinese courts have jurisdiction to try this case.

[5] In our view, the appeal should be dismissed but for reasons different from those given by the motion judge.

[6] This is not a jurisdictional case. The respondents live and were served in Ontario and the Ontario courts accordingly have jurisdiction. It is also significant that before the respondents brought the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the appellants filed a statement of defence and took other steps in connection with the action. Even if the appellants had not been served within Ontario, they have attorned to the jurisdiction.

[7] The forum non conveniens issue is not relevant.

[8] We see no merit in this appeal and it is therefore dismissed.

[9] Given the basis upon which we have disposed of this appeal we make no order as to costs.

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”