Here is an interesting case that I read about today.
The defendants brought a motion to set aside the service of
statements of claim or, in the alternative, for an order dismissing the
action against them for want of jurisdiction or, in the further alternative, on
the ground of forum non conveniens (ie. not the right place). Sadly (for them)
the motion was dismissed.
All parties were residents of USA. The plaintiff alleged the
defendants breached a verbal agreement and memorandum of understanding by
refusing to execute assignment of rights in technology, making the plaintiff
the owner of those rights. The technology had been developed by the defendants in
cooperation with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued the defendants in tort and for breach of
contract when the defendants applied for a patent for the technology in here in
Canada. Making sure it was covering its bases, the plaintiff also sued in the USA with respect to the same
technology. The defendants did not accept Ontario’s jurisdiction. Hence the
motion.
However, the judge disagreed, stating that there was no
forum more appropriate than Ontario with respect to the issues raised in the
lawsuit.
The case, for those of you interested, is SRU Biosystems Inc. v. Hobbs; [2006] O.J. No. 987.
Posted by: |