SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: 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, and 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, personally and as litigation guardian for SULAIMAN SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, KHALID SAAD KHALID AL JABRI, MOHAMMED SAAD KH AL JABRI, NAIF SAAD KH 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 EAST 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, NEW EAST FAMILY FOUNDATION, NEW EAST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, NEW SOUTH EAST ESTABLISHMENT, NCOM INC. and 2701644 ONTARIO INC., Defendants
BEFORE: Cavanagh J.
COUNSEL: Munaf Mohamed K.C., Jonathan Bell, and Doug Fenton for the plaintiffs Jeff Larry, Hailey Bruckner, and Janet Song for Mohammed Aljabri, New East (US) Inc., New East 804 805 LLC, New East Back Bay LLC, New East DC LLC, Golden Valley Management Ltd., Ten Leaves Management Ltd., New East International Limited and New East Family Foundation John Adair and Sean Pierce for Saad Aljabri Andrew Matheson for Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd.
HEARD: At the direction of the Divisional Court made in an endorsement dated January 16, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
1By an endorsement released on January 16, 2026, the Divisional Court allowed an appeal from the aspect of an earlier endorsement made in this action (2024 ONSC 6705) by which I directed the defendants Saad Aljabri, Mohammed Aljabri and defendants who are their family members (the “Aljabri Defendants”), to answer questions regarding the identity of the third parties who are paying for the living expenses of the Aljabri Defendants. The Divisional Court set aside this aspect of the order and remitted the matter back to me to for a determination of whether there is a risk to the personal safety of the third party funders if the names of those funders are disclosed and if so what order should be made.
2The Aljabri Defendants had brought a motion to vary two Mareva Orders made in this action. Within this motion, the Plaintiffs had brought a motion for an order (i) providing directions on the categories of questions that must be answered on the motion to vary the Mareva Orders, and (ii) requiring answers to certain questions taken under advisement and/or refused at the cross-examinations and rule 39.03 examinations. The questions included those regarding how the Aljabri Defendants have been meeting and intend to meet their ordinary living expenses.
3The Aljabri Defendants opposed this motion on various grounds, including that there is a genuine risk to disclosing the identities of their financial supporters.
4In its endorsement, the Divisional Court noted that by the agreement of the parties, the names of the third party funders were provided to counsel for the Plaintiffs under a “counsels’ eyes only” agreement in effect while the appeal is pending. The Divisional Court directed that these names shall not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs until a decision is made on the matter remitted back to me.
Evidentiary Background
5The Aljabri Defendants rely on the affidavit of Saad Aljabri (“Saad”) sworn on June 17, 2024. In his affidavit, Saad deposes that from 1999 to 2015, he rose through the ranks of the Saudi Ministry of the Interior working for Mohammed bin Nayef (“MBN”) and became his senior advisor. He deposes that on June 20/21, 2017, Mohammed bin Salman (“MBS”) seized power in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”) in a palace coup, forcing MBN to step down so that MBS could assume the role of Crown Prince.
6Saad deposes that when MBS seized power, Saad was with his family in Bodrum, Turkey and he received a message from MBN advising him to stay outside Saudi Arabia and not to come back. Saad deposes that his son, Mohammed, called his siblings Omar and Sarah to tell them they should leave Saudi Arabia at once. He deposes that they later called Mohammed and told him they had been prevented from boarding a plane and told they were not permitted to travel outside of Saudi Arabia. Saad deposes that MBS attempted to coerce him to return to Saudi Arabia by using his children as bargaining chips. Saad deposes that his two children are now imprisoned and serving sentences after having been convicted in a secret trial without procedural safeguards, access to counsel, or the right of appeal.
7Saad deposes based on information provided by his children’s lawyer, his daughter, Hissah, and others, that three of his family’s associates who were helping to look after Omar and Sarah were also detained and prosecuted: their caretaker, a family friend, and his former assistant. He deposes that these persons were named as co-conspirators and tried together with Omar and Sarah.
8Saad deposes that in addition to Sarah and Omar, he has been unable to communicate with his brother, Abdulrahman Aljabri, since May 2020 and he does not know where he is or how to get in touch with him. Saad deposes that his son-in-law and his nephew have also been detained in Saudi Arabia and, in the case of his brother-in-law, tortured.
9Saad deposes that he moved to Toronto and he later learned that MBS had issued a warrant for his arrest the same day he moved to Toronto.
10Saad deposes that he was contacted by a contact in the intelligence community who warned him of a threat to his safety. He deposes that he learned through his contacts in the intelligence community that agents of MBS, who were employed by the government of the KSA, had been dispatched to Canada to assassinate him on or around October 15, 2018, and that some of those individuals had been turned away at the Ottawa International Airport by Canada Border Services Agency officers.
11Saad deposes that the circumstances he describes have led him to conclude that MBS and the current Saudi regime will take measures to target and persecute any individual whom they come to learn has provided material assistance to him or his family, including with respect to this litigation.
12In response to the Plaintiffs’ motion, Mohammed affirmed an affidavit on June 17, 2024. In this affidavit, Mohammed deposes that he has serious concerns for the safety of the third parties who have provided funding for this litigation. Mohammed refers to Saad’s affidavit and confirms that he called his siblings, Omar and Sarah, and told them to flee after Saad was warned of the danger posed by MBS after the coup. He deposes that they later told him that they had been prevented from boarding the plane and could not leave Saudi Arabia. He deposes that his brother-in-law and former business partner and his cousin have also been detained in the KSA and, in the case of his brother-in-law, tortured. He states that where he does not have direct knowledge of statements made in Saad’s affidavit, he believes the information to be true.
13The evidence of Saad and Mohammed with respect to the treatment of two of Saad’s children, other family members, and others associated with him following the seizure of power by MBS in 2017 was not challenged through cross-examination or other evidence.
14In response to the evidence of Saad and Mohammed, the Plaintiffs rely on the evidence of Nabil Alomar. In his affidavit, Mr. Alomar deposes:
a. He is the interim Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Tahakom Investments Company ("TIC") and the General Manager of a group of seventeen companies established between 2008 and 2016 in Saudi Arabia (collectively, the "Group Companies") (with the exception of Saudi Technology & Security Comprehensive Control Company ("STSCCC"), where he is the Chief Executive Officer and a member of its Board of Managers), including the Plaintiffs.
b. TIC is a joint stock corporation incorporated on January 3, 2018 pursuant to the laws of the KSA. In 2023, TIC's assets were approximately SAR 32.2 billion (USD 8.6 billion) (as audited by the international firm EY, which also audits the financials of the operating Plaintiffs).
c. As interim CEO of TIC, he reports directly to the TIC Board of Directors.
d. The ownership of the Group Companies was transferred to TIC between February and May of 2018. TIC is now the sole shareholder of each of the Group Companies, including the Plaintiffs.
e. TIC provides support to the Group Companies. He is currently the General Manager of each of the Group Companies, other than STSCCC. In the case of STSCCC, he is the CEO and a member of its Board of Managers. He has been the CEO of STSCCC since 2015.
f. The respective CEOs of all of the Group Companies, other than STSCCC, report directly to him. Some of the Group Companies (including certain Plaintiffs) have significant business operations that generate billions of Saudi Riyals in revenue per year.
g. TIC is just one of many investments that the PIF holds, both nationally and internationally. TIC is, in turn, the sole shareholder of each of the Plaintiffs. However, neither Mr. Alomar nor his predecessor, Mr. Alnowaiser, have ever reported on this litigation to, nor been instructed on this litigation by, anyone at the PIF or within the Saudi Government. This litigation is being pursued by significant and reputable corporations solely to recover funds that were taken from them without any entitlement.
Analysis
15The Aljabri Defendants submit that the identities of third party funders should not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs because there is a genuine security risk to such funders from disclosure of this information. The Aljabri Defendants submit that the identities of such persons providing financial support is not probative on the motion to vary and the potential prejudice of such disclosure is extreme.
16The Plaintiffs submit that the unchallenged evidence is that the Plaintiffs have not cooperated or reported to any other actor in the KSA alleged to pose a risk to the safety of the Defendants or third party sources of funding.
17The Plaintiffs rely on decisions on motions in this action that have confirmed that the Plaintiffs are corporate entities pursuing legitimate litigation and that the Plaintiffs, alone, had standing to advance the claims against Saad and the other defendants, and they are not controlled by MBS. The Plaintiffs submit that the evidence of Saad and Mohammed about safety concerns associated with the disclosure to the Plaintiffs of the identities of third parties who provided funding for living expenses is part of an ongoing narrative advanced by Saad and Mohammed that they are the objects of political persecution, and that this narrative is inconsistent with the evidence of Mr. Alomar and prior findings by this Court.1
18The Plaintiffs submit that there is no objective, independent evidence that the Plaintiffs, themselves, pose any threat to the safety of the Defendants or any third party funders or will relay information to any actor that could pose a threat.
19The issue to be decided is not whether the Plaintiffs, corporate entities pursuing commercial claims, themselves, pose a risk to the safety of third party funders if their identities are disclosed to the Plaintiffs. The issue is whether there is a material risk that disclosure of this information to the Plaintiffs may, through individuals who may learn this information, present a risk to the safety or security of the funders because of their association with Saad. Saad’s evidence is that his safety and security was put at risk following the seizure of power by MBS in 2017 and, because of their association with him, the safety and security of two of his children, other family members, and others associated with him have been jeopardized through actions taken by the KSA government at the apparent behest of MBS, as set out in Saad’s affidavit.
20I am not satisfied that the absence of evidence that the Plaintiffs will relay information to any actor that could pose a threat to the third party funders is a sufficient assurance that the identities of such funders, if disclosed to the Plaintiffs, would not become known to high-ranking individuals in the KSA government, the result of which may be to put the safety and security of the funders at risk.
21Based on the evidence of Saad and Mohammed, I find that there is a material risk that disclosure to the Plaintiffs of the identities of persons who have provided funding to Saad and his family members for living expenses may become known to persons in the KSA government who may take actions that would jeopardize the personal safety and security of such third party funders because of their association with Saad.
22The next issue to be determined is what order should be made.
23Following release of my endorsement and while the appeal to the Divisional Court was pending, the parties reached an agreement under which the Aljabri Defendants would provide the identity information under a “counsels’ eyes only” agreement. The Divisional Court directed that the names of third party funders not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs until such time as I make my decision on the issues referred back to me.
24When I balance the potential prejudice to the third party funders from the material risk to their personal safety and security that I have found would exist if their identities were disclosed to the Plaintiffs with the potential prejudice to the Plaintiffs from not receiving disclosure of the identities of the funders, and with disclosure of such information remaining limited to their legal counsel, I conclude that the appropriate order to be made is that the Aljabri Defendants shall not be required to disclose to the Plaintiffs the identities of the third party funders, and that the identity information provided to counsel for the Plaintiffs under the “counsels’ eyes only agreement” shall remain with counsel and shall not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs or others.
Disposition
25For these reasons, I order that (i) the Aljabri Defendants shall not be required to disclose to the Plaintiffs the identities of the third party funders who provided, and continue to provide, funding for living expenses for the Aljabri Defendants, and (ii) counsel for the Plaintiffs shall continue to hold the information received by them under the counsels’ eyes only agreement without disclosing such information to the Plaintiffs or others.
26If there is an issue about costs, I may be spoken to.
Cavanagh J.
Date: June 2, 2026
Footnotes
- Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, 2021 ONSC 4443; Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri, 2023 ONSC 4740