2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a misrepresentation action against a foreign law firm for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant, an Ontario corporation, appealed the dismissal of its action against a Spanish law firm for alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding patent applications.
The action was dismissed at first instance for lack of jurisdiction, as the motion judge found the appellant failed to establish a good arguable case for the factual allegations underpinning jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding presumptive connecting factors and the requirement to establish a "good arguable case" for jurisdictional facts.
The Court also rejected allegations of judicial bias and dismissed a motion for leave to appeal costs, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.
Action against foreign law firm dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff failed to establish misrepresentation.
The defendant, a Spanish law firm, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, sued the defendant for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the status of patent applications in Panama and Costa Rica, which had lapsed.
The court applied the Van Breda test and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for the tort of misrepresentation occurring in Ontario, as the plaintiff had not provided the necessary powers of attorney in time and the defendant had not provided incorrect information.
The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed.
