The third party moved to stay a third party claim for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds in litigation arising from leaks in an Alberta pipeline project.
Applying the real and substantial connection framework, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the alleged tort had a pleaded situs in Ontario, the litigation involved an Ontario contract pleaded to be governed by the Sale of Goods Act, and the engineering design work lay at the core of the dispute among all parties.
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction inquiry must consider the overall subject-matter of the litigation rather than the third party's characteristics in isolation.
The motion was dismissed, and the court declined to stay the proceeding in favour of Alberta because separate proceedings would risk inconsistent judgments and procedural inefficiency.
