The defendants moved to stay or dismiss an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of forum non conveniens.
The dispute concerned whether a letter constituted a binding agreement requiring the transfer of wireless spectrum licences to the plaintiff.
The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because there was a good arguable case that the contract was made in Ontario and that the action concerned licences constituting personal property located in Ontario.
The defendants failed to rebut the presumptive connecting factors or demonstrate that California was clearly the more appropriate forum.
The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused.
