COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655418-00CL

DATE: 20210622

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA STAR AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KAFA’AT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY & SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING COMPANY, AND SKY PRIME INVESTMENT COMPANY

Plaintiffs

– and –

SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES LTD., 1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN GROWTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL INC., QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC., GOLDEN VALLEY MANAGEMENT LTD., NEW SOUTH PTE LTD., TEN LEAVES MANAGEMENT LTD., 2767143 ONTARIO INC., NAGY MOUSTAFA, HSBC TRUSTEE (C.I.) LIMITED in its capacity as Trustee of the Black Stallion Trust, HSBC PRIVATE BANKING NOMINEE 3 (JERSEY) LIMITED in its capacity as a Nominee Shareholder of Black Stallion Investments Limited, BLACK STALLION INVESTMENTS LIMITED, AND NEW EAST FAMILY FOUNDATION

Defendants

Munaf Mohamed QC, Amanda C. McLachlan, and Jonathan G. Bell, for the Plaintiffs/Responding Parties

Harry Underwood, Andrew Max, and Emily Young, for the Defendants/Moving Parties

HEARD: May 19, 2021

C GILMORE, J.

RULING ON JURISDICTION MOTION

OVERVIEW

[1] This is the moving party Defendants’ motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action against them on the basis that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the action.

[2] The moving party Defendants in this motion are Mohammed Al Jabri (“Mohammed”); Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd. (“Dreams”); New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, New East Back Bay LLC, and New East DC LLC (“the New East Companies”); Golden Valley Management Ltd. (“Golden Valley”); and Ten Leaves Management Ltd. (“Ten Leaves”); or as group, the “Objecting Defendants”.

[3] The Plaintiffs defend the motion on three grounds: 1) the Objecting Defendants have attorned to the jurisdiction of this Court; 2) there are presumptive factors connecting the matter to Ontario; and 3) there is a real and substantive connection between Ontario and the litigation as a whole.

[4] As will be set out below, the Objecting Defendants’ motion is dismissed. While they may not have attorned to this jurisdiction, there are substantial connecting factors that make Ontario the logical and fair location for this multi-faceted litigation.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[5] The background facts to the underlying litigation are well known to the parties and can be found in my decisions on the original ex-parte Mareva motion, heard January 22, 2021, and the set aside motion, heard February 19, 2021. In those decisions, I found that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case of fraud in granting the ex-parte Mareva Order. On the set aside motion, I found that the Plaintiffs had met the required threshold for full and frank disclosure on a Mareva motion and the Order was not set aside. Leave to appeal the set aside motion was not granted.

[6] In the main claim, the Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Saad Al Jabri (“Dr. Saad”) misappropriated $3.5B USD from their companies. He used family members, close business associates, and nominee shareholders to conceal his involvement. This is referred to as the “Fraudulent Scheme” in the Plaintiffs’ materials.

[7] The Plaintiffs allege that Mohammed is a participant in the Fraudulent Scheme as the beneficiary of the alleged gifting of Dr. Saad’s assets. They allege that Mohammed has been rewarded handsomely for assisting his father in the Fraudulent Scheme, having received (as of January 2021) payments of at least $4.125M USD from his father.

[8] Mohammed was born in 1999 and completed his education in Saudi Arabia. From 2013 to 2015, he worked for an investment firm called “The Family Office” in Bahrain. Mohammed was unaware that while he was working there, his father had invested $10M USD in a portfolio owned by The Family Office.

[9] He returned to Riyadh in the spring of 2015 ostensibly to use his financial skills to assist his father in managing the family finances and investments. His evidence on cross-examination was that managing his father’s investments is his full-time job.

[10] After the 2017 Saudi coup, Mohammed moved to the United States and then settled in London, England in September 2019 where he now resides with his wife and child. He has never lived in Canada, although he has visited his father at his home in Toronto on several occasions. He cannot obtain a Saudi passport due to the political conditions there, so he travels with his Maltese passport.

[11] According to the Objecting Defendants, Dr. Saad orally gifted Mohammed all of his assets on June 21, 2017. The gift was given by Dr. Saad while his family was in Turkey celebrating Eid when it became clear that neither he nor his family could return to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”) as a result of the coup by Mohammed Bin Salman. According to Dr. Saad, he was concerned about his personal safety and the preservation of his assets. Accordingly, he gifted all of his worldwide assets to Mohammed, but carved out certain personal bank accounts that he retained. There are no emails or other evidence to corroborate the making of the gift in June 2017.

[12] While initially the Defendants’ position was that an actual Gift Deed was executed on June 21, 2017, it was later conceded that in fact there was no documentary evidence of the gift on that date. The gifting of assets from father to son was done verbally, with no other witnesses present. Mohammed’s evidence is that the written Gift Deed was prepared in December 2018 in Toronto in order to “memorialize” the oral gift. According to Mohammed, the purpose of the gift was to provide financial support for all members of the family. No actual transfers of any assets occurred until after Dr. Saad moved to Toronto.

[13] The New East Companies own real estate in the United States. The companies have bank accounts in the United States and do not own assets in Canada. The New East Companies are owned by New East International Limited, a Guernsey company owned by Mohammed.

[14] The Plaintiffs allege that the New East Companies were purchased by Dr. Saad with misappropriated funds from the Plaintiff companies. The New East companies were transferred to Mohammed in October 2017, four months after the oral gift was allegedly made to him.

[15] The New East Companies are vigorously opposing the Plaintiffs’ efforts to recognize and enforce the Receivership Order against them in the United States. The New East Companies have not raised any issue concerning this Court’s jurisdiction to issue the Receivership Order. Further, the New East Companies have provided bank statements to the Receiver in Ontario as required by the Receivership Order.

[16] Dreams is a British Virgin Islands company with no assets in Ontario. It is beneficially owned by Mohammed as a result of the transfer from his father in January 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that Dreams received at least $193,570,170 USD of misappropriated funds from the Fraudulent Scheme. The Plaintiffs allege that Dreams is still being controlled by Dr. Saad from Ontario.

[17] Ten Leaves is a Cayman Islands company with no assets in Ontario. It is beneficially owned by Mohammed.

[18] Golden Valley is a Cayman Islands company owned by Mohammed. It holds 20 small venture capital investments in the United States and the United Kingdom. Dr. Saad invested $10M USD in the Defendant Gryphon by way of a Convertible Loan Agreement and the Gryphon Security Agreement (“the Agreements”). Gryphon was entirely capitalized by Dr. Saad and the Agreements are governed by Ontario law. The Agreements were subsequently assigned to Golden Valley.

[19] Golden Valley has commenced an action in Ontario against Gryphon and Infosec for payment on the loans.

[20] Dr. Saad appointed Mohammed as his nominee to act as a Director of Gryphon. While a Director of Gryphon, Mohammed loaned $1.5M to Infosec (a Canadian Company). That loan is governed by Ontario law and was assigned to Golden Valley.

[21] In the course of gifting his assets, Dr. Saad created the Black Stallion Trust, into which he deposited $67.725M USD in October 2018. The funds transferred into the Black Stallion Trust came from Dreams, which had allegedly already been gifted to Mohammed. Mohammed receives a monthly distribution of $40,000 from the Black Stallion Trust, which is to continue for the duration of his life. If he becomes incapacitated, the distribution will go to his brother Khalid Al Jabri (“Khalid”). Mohammed’s evidence was that the trust was created for estate planning purposes and likely to protect the funds from creditors. He is one of the beneficiaries of the trust.

[22] Mohammed was a nominee shareholder of two of the Plaintiff companies, Enma Al Ared Real Estate Investment (“Enma”) and New Dawn Contracting Company. The Plaintiffs allege that Mohammed conspired with his father and diverted $3.68M USD from those companies to himself. The Deloitte Report sets out that a total of $30.594M USD was embezzled from Enma.

[23] Mohammed was entitled to receive a 1% profit from the operation of Enma, which was 11,710,233 SAR in 2015. Mohammed never received his share of those profits. He was not aware that this same amount was received by his father in 2015.

[24] Dr. Saad’s HSBC accounts containing approximately $15.89M USD were transferred to Mohammed in August 2019. Mohammed used funds from this account to purchase his father’s home on the Bridle Path in Toronto for $13M CDN and a Toronto home for Khalid in November 2019 for $4.465M CDN. Mohammed also paid Khalid another $2.5M USD for expenses.

[25] Mohammed loaned $1.2M CDN to 2391965 Ontario Inc. to purchase two apartments on Bayview Avenue in which his father lived when he first came to Toronto. The loan was subsequently assigned to a numbered company owned by Khalid. The loan was then forgiven.

[26] Mohammed made a $2M USD donation to the New East Family Foundation, which was founded by Dr. Saad.

[27] Mohammed has also been paying for all of his father’s living expenses and legal fees, and rents his residence in London, England.

[28] Mohammed claims to own 100 percent of the shares in Ten Leaves. The Directors of Ten Leaves are Khalid, Jonathan Wainwright, and Leonard Toenz. Ten Leaves owns property in Malta.

[29] In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that Mohammed is a core participant in the Fraudulent Scheme as the beneficiary of the alleged gifting of Dr. Saad’s assets. It is alleged that the Deloitte report shows traced payments of $4.125M USD from Dr. Saad to Mohammed. Mohammed’s position is that he was gifted millions of dollars from his father.

THE LEGAL ISSUES

1. ATTORNMENT

[30] There are three bases on which a court can take jurisdiction over a matter: 1) presence; 2) attornment; and 3) a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the action, the foreign moving parties, and Ontario: see Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572.

[31] The position of the Objecting Defendants is that neither presence nor attornment apply in this case. The issue of presence was not argued on this motion.

[32] The Plaintiffs point to consequential relief sought by the Objecting Defendants as follows:

a. A declaration that this Court has no jurisdiction to restrain Mohammed from dealing with assets he legally or beneficially owns including Dreams, the New East Companies, Golden Valley, and Ten Leaves.

b. An Order varying the Mareva Order to remove Dreams and the New East Companies from the assets of Dr. Saad specifically identified as being frozen.

[33] The Plaintiffs argue that requesting this relief requires the Court to make a determination on the merits as to who is the legal and/or beneficial owner of those assets. This relief is requested in the face of findings already made by this Court that Dr. Saad owns the assets in question.

[34] The Plaintiffs point out that Golden Valley has sued in Ontario in relation to the Gryphon Loan. Further, the New East Companies in the United States oppose recognition of the Receivership Order, but have not argued that Ontario did not have jurisdiction to order it in the first place.

[35] The Objecting Defendants submit that the Plaintiffs have misapprehended their request for consequential relief. They are not seeking a determination of what Mohammed’s assets are, just the jurisdiction to make the Mareva Order against him which would bind those assets.

[36] I agree with the Objecting Defendants that Mohammed is not asking the Court to make specific findings about legal or beneficial ownership of assets, just that his assets not be bound by the Mareva Order. However, the importance of this point is diminished considerably given my findings below that there is a real and substantial connection between this litigation and Ontario.

2. REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION TO ONTARIO

[37] In Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353, 115 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 54, the Court confirmed the well established principle that “an Ontario court will assume jurisdiction against a foreign defendant only where the plaintiff establishes “a good arguable case” for assuming jurisdiction through either the allegations in the statement of claim or a combination of the allegations in the statement of claim and evidence filed on a jurisdiction motion.”

[38] The motion judge need not assess the merits of the case as in a summary judgment motion, the motion judge need only be satisfied as per Rothmans that the Plaintiff has met the burden of demonstrating a “good arguable case” supporting a connecting factor.

[39] At para. 90, Van Breda establishes four possible presumptive connecting factors:

a. The Defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;

b. The Defendant carries on business in the province;

c. The tort was committed in the province; and

d. A contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.

[40] Importantly, the Plaintiffs need only establish a single presumptive factor in order to ground jurisdiction. At that point, the burden shifts to the Objecting Defendants to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction by demonstrating a weak relationship between the subject matter of the litigation and the forum (Van Breda, at para. 95). If no presumptive connecting factor is established by the Plaintiffs or if the presumption of jurisdiction is adequately rebutted by the Defendants, the Court will lack jurisdiction to hear the matter on the basis of the real and substantial connection test (Van Breda, at para. 81).

A. Contracts Made in Ontario

[41] The Plaintiffs submit, and I agree, that there are multiple contracts which were formed in Ontario and are relevant. Those contracts include the Gryphon Convertible Loan Agreement, the Gryphon Security Agreement, the Infosec Loan, the QFive Share Purchase Agreement, and the QFive Promissory Note. There is surely a connection between these contracts and the claim, given the tracing evidence of misappropriated funds that flowed into the entities that formed those Ontario contracts.

[42] The Objecting Defendants argue that finding that any of the loan-related agreements are connected to the dispute would have far-reaching and undesirable consequences because it would mean that virtually any forum where misappropriated funds were used would presumptively have jurisdiction over the entire fraud claim, regardless of where the fraud occurred. They submit that this alleged connecting factor should not be used to circumvent the principled basis of the tort-based connecting factor.

[43] I do not agree. These agreements were all made in Ontario. This Court has already found, for example, that the shares purchased in relation to the QFive Share Purchase Agreement were purchased with funds misappropriated by the Defendants. As well, the QFive Promissory Note was made in Ontario and governed by Ontario law.

[44] However, the most important agreement in the context of this motion is the Gift Deed which this Court finds on its own to be a presumptive connecting factor. The effect of the Gift Deed, if the resulting transfers are validated, is to leave the Plaintiffs without a remedy as Dr. Saad’s assets will have been placed out of reach.

[45] The circumstances surrounding the original oral gift in 2017 are both undocumented and uncorroborated. Dr. Saad’s evidence concerning the Gift Deed was also contradictory. First, he confirmed under oath that he wrote the deed on June 21, 2017. Later he corrected this evidence and confirmed the deed had not actually been created until he memorialized it by typing out the agreement himself in December 2018 in Toronto.

[46] Transfers in accordance with the alleged gift did not occur until months or even years after the purported gift was made. More significantly, the gift was created and signed in Ontario in December 2018. This evidence is undisputed. I agree with the Plaintiffs that whether or not the Gift Deed is valid is a matter for trial and not relevant for the purposes of this motion. What is relevant is the fact that the Gift Deed can be used to ground jurisdiction.

[47] In Solloway v. Klondex Mines Ltd., 2014 ONSC 391, the Court held at para. 42: “Apart from the fact that it remains to be determined whether this agreement will be rescinded or vitiated in the future, that the agreement may be set aside in the future, does not disconnect its connection to Ontario today.” Therefore, while the validity of the Gift Deed remains in issue, this does not preclude the Court from relying on it as a presumptive connecting factor.

[48] There were many concerns raised by the Plaintiffs regarding the validity of the gift of assets by Dr. Saad to his son, including:

a. Dr. Saad’s formation and control of the Black Stallion Trust after the Gift Deed and the transfer of $50M USD from Dreams (an entity owned by Mohammed) to establish the trust.

b. Dr. Saad’s retention of certain personal bank accounts despite declaring he had given all of his assets to Mohammed.

c. The monthly allowance of $40,000 given by Dr. Saad to Mohammed when Mohammed was allegedly the owner of all of the assets. In his cross-examination, Mohammed was not clear why he was receiving this and thought the payment might have stopped (Q334).

d. Mohammed’s evidence that the management of the gifted assets is his full-time job, while at the same time he was unable to provide specifics about any of the investment portfolios, rental incomes, or revenues of the various assets. For example, Mohammed had no idea what the value of Dreams was in January 2021, nor on the date it was transferred to him.

e. Mohammed’s gifting of $13M CDN to his father to buy the Bridal Path residence and over $8M to his brother Khalid for expenses, a forgivable loan, and a house purchase.

f. Mohammed’s ongoing payments to his father for expenses and legal fees.

[49] I agree with the Plaintiffs that there is substantial evidence, even in Mohammed’s own cross-examination transcript, that points to the entire gift being a ruse and that while Mohammed may be the actual or beneficial owner of the assets, Dr. Saad continues to direct the management of those assets from Ontario.

[50] The question that is raised by all of Dr. Saad’s actions in relation to the gifts is why did he not simply make a will to ensure that his assets would be passed on to his children? Further, why did Mohammed not do any succession planning, leaving all of his assets equally to his family members if that was the reason for the gift? Frankly, the gift arrangement is at odds with common sense.

[51] The Objecting Defendants argue that the Gift Deed is not part of events that give rise to the dispute (i.e., the nucleus of the claims). I disagree. The Gift Deed and the subsequent actions of both Mohammed and Dr. Saad, the timing of the “memorializing” of the oral gift, and the fact that the assets related to the gift are all the subject of the Plaintiffs’ alleged Fraudulent Scheme are clearly part of the nucleus of the claims.

[52] In summary, I find that the Gift Deed and the other contracts outlined above were formed in Ontario, are subject to Ontario law, and that they constitute a presumptive connecting factor.

B. Property in Ontario

[53] Location of property may be found to be a presumptive connecting factor if the subject of the claim is the real property alleged to be the vehicle for the alleged unjust enrichment (Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, 118 O.R. (3d) 763, at para. 21).

[54] In this case, Mohammed used the gifted funds (which are alleged to have come from misappropriated funds) to buy assets in Ontario for his father and brother. There are also other assets purchased with allegedly misappropriated funds, including the shares in Canadian Growth and the Gryphon loan interests.

[55] The Plaintiffs have made general claims of constructive trust and tracing over all of the assets owned by Dr. Saad and Mohammed. Those claims would include the Ontario real property and assets.

[56] The Objecting Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have disposed of this connecting factor in their own pleadings by admitting that all of the torts took place in the KSA. The Plaintiffs argue that the Fraudulent Scheme was and continues to be perpetrated from Ontario because Dr. Saad continues to direct a massive international conspiracy.

[57] In Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, the Supreme Court considered enforcement of a Florida judgment in Ontario. In considering the “real and substantial connection” test, the Court held at para. 32 that a “defendant can reasonably be brought within the embrace of a foreign jurisdiction’s law where he or she has participated in something of significance or was actively involved in that foreign jurisdiction.”

[58] As I have already found for the purposes of this motion that the Gift Deed is a ruse, it would logically follow that Dr. Saad is still involved in the control and management of the misappropriated funds. Dr. Saad still controls the Black Stallion Trust which pays money out each month for the support of his children. That is, the funds that Mohammed receives from the Black Stallion Trust pays for family expenses, including his father’s. Therefore, the evidence shows that Mohammed is simply a nominee through which funds actually controlled by his father flow. That control is necessarily centred in Toronto where Dr. Saad lives. This grounds another connecting factor.

C. Jurisdiction over the Claim as a Whole

[59] The general common law rule is that the situs of the tort is where the damages are suffered as per Rothmans. The focus in consideration of this point must be whether jurisdiction should be assumed over the claim as a whole even though not all of the Defendants reside in Ontario.

[60] In Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224, the Court of Appeal considered the application of the Van Breda test to a case in which a young woman died in a motor scooter accident in Thailand. She was in Thailand participating in a “Teach in Thailand” training session arranged through the Respondent British Columbia company. After her estate commenced an action in Ontario, the motion judge dismissed a motion by the Defendant to stay the action based on a lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal finding that some of the misrepresentations relied on were alleged to have been made in Ontario before the deceased left for Thailand. Further, the Court found at para. 13 that: “[I]t is unnecessary on a jurisdiction motion for the court to determine whether all of the alleged misconduct was that of the appellant, as pleaded, or that all is connected to Ontario: Van Breda, at para. 99” (emphasis in original).

[61] In this case, Dr. Saad and 12 of the other Defendants are residents in Ontario. The transfers in accordance with the Gift Deed were done from Ontario and their legitimacy will be the subject of future litigation.

[62] The alternative is to litigate this matter, including the legitimacy of the Gift Deed, in the many jurisdictions in which the allegedly gifted assets are located, including Malta, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, and the United States. This, of course, risks inconsistent findings with the pursuit of enforcement in Ontario against the Defendants who reside here. The Court will exercise its in personam jurisdiction to enforce rights based on contract, trust, or equity in foreign jurisdictions as per Potter v. Boston, 2014 ONSC 2361, 43 R.F.L. (7th) 339. In summary, I find that the Plaintiffs are correct when they pose the question, if not Ontario, where? There is no other jurisdiction that has any closer connection to the core of the litigation than Ontario. In any event, the Objecting Defendants did not raise the issue of forum non conveniens and as such, the Court will not consider this issue further (Van Breda, at para. 102).

[63] The Objecting Defendants complain that the Plaintiffs cannot have things both ways given that they have commenced litigation in the United States asserting the same claims. That is incorrect. The United States claim relates to attaching the eight New East properties in relation to my January 22, 2021 Order. Once the attachment Order is made, the Plaintiffs will seek an immediate stay of their action. Dr. Saad, Khalid, and Mohammed have requested that this matter be transferred from State to Federal Court. They do not raise any issue with respect to the jurisdiction of Ontario with respect to the granting of the January 22, 2021 Order. Further, it is unclear why Mohammed, Dr. Saad, and Khalid are all seeking the transfer to Federal Court when the properties were allegedly gifted solely to Mohammed.

[64] I agree with the Plaintiffs that a tort arises in any jurisdiction where steps are taken in furtherance of the conspiracy as per the text of Professor Janet Walker on Conflict of Laws (Canadian Conflict of Laws, 6th ed. (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2005), at p. 44). This Court has already found that a strong prima facie case of fraud has been established, that Dr. Saad is adept at moving money around, and that there is still a question as to why Dr. Saad’s spouse, children, relatives, and friends were named as nominee shareholders of the Plaintiff companies. Those findings have not been displaced. Given the questions surrounding the gifting of Dr. Saad’s assets, there is evidence to suggest that Dr. Saad continues to “move money around” in furtherance of the conspiracy.

[65] In summary, fairness dictates that the Plaintiffs’ claims including the legitimacy of the Gift Deed be heard in Ontario. The Van Breda test has been met by way of an arguable case with respect to multiple connecting factors including contract, property, and location of the torts in Ontario. While the presumption of jurisdiction from these connecting factors is not irrebuttable, for the reasons noted throughout I do not accept that the Objecting Defendants have met the burden of negating the presumption.

ORDERS AND COSTS

[66] Given all of the above, I order that the motion be dismissed.

[67] The parties agreed that the quantum of costs would be $200,000. Therefore, the Objecting Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiffs costs of $200,000 forthwith.

C. Gilmore, J.

Released: June 22, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655418-00CL

DATE: 20210622

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SAKAB SAUDI HOLDING COMPANY, ALPHA STAR AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY, ENMA AL ARED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, KAFA’AT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS COMPANY, SECURITY CONTROL COMPANY, ARMOUR SECURITY INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SAUDI TECHNOLOGY & SECURITY COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY CONTROL COMPANY, NEW DAWN CONTRACTING COMPANY, AND SKY PRIME INVESTMENT COMPANY

Plaintiffs

– and –

SAAD KHALID S AL JABRI, DREAMS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY SERVICES LTD., 1147848 B.C. LTD., NEW EAST (US) INC., NEW EAST 804 805 LLC, NEW EAST BACK BAY LLC, NEW EAST DC LLC, JAALIK CONTRACTING LTD., NADYAH SULAIMAN A AL JABBARI, KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH AL JABRI, SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, HISSAH SAAD KH AL JABRI, SALEH SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, CANADIAN GROWTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GRYPHON SECURE INC., INFOSEC GLOBAL INC., QFIVE GLOBAL INVESTMENT INC., GOLDEN VALLEY MANAGEMENT LTD., NEW SOUTH PTE LTD., TEN LEAVES MANAGEMENT LTD., 2767143 ONTARIO INC., NAGY MOUSTAFA, HSBC TRUSTEE (C.I.) LIMITED in its capacity as Trustee of the Black Stallion Trust, HSBC PRIVATE BANKING NOMINEE 3 (JERSEY) LIMITED in its capacity as a Nominee Shareholder of Black Stallion Investments Limited, BLACK STALLION INVESTMENTS LIMITED, AND NEW EAST FAMILY FOUNDATION

Defendants

RULING ON JURISDICTION MOTION

C. Gilmore, J.

Released: June 22, 2021