The appellant challenged a motion judge’s ruling that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over an action alleging conspiracy to commit fraud.
The Court of Appeal held that the record disclosed tortious conduct with an essential part occurring in Toronto, including a renegotiation agreement and losses arising from it, thereby engaging the presumptive connecting factors that the tort was committed in Ontario and that a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.
The court also accepted evidence linking the appellant to the movement of the respondent’s funds through a company partly owned by the appellant and into the appellant’s personal account.
The appeal was dismissed and costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.
