In the recent decision in Greta Inc. v. de Lange, the Ontario
Court of Appeal held that even where a defendant has never been to
Canada and holds no assets in Canada, if an act in furtherance of a
conspiracy in which they are alleged to have participated is
committed in Ontario, then that is sufficient for an Ontario Court
to assume jurisdiction over them.1
In March, 2009, the plaintiff Greta Inc. entered into a contract
with Prosperity International LLC, a Florida corporation controlled
by one defendant, Michael Burgess, pursuant to which Prosperity
agreed to provide Greta with financing for the development of a
wind turbine project in Estonia. The contract, which was governed
by Ontario law, required Greta to provide an initial deposit of
€2 million to Prosperity prior to Greta being provided with
any financing, and for Prosperity to provide Greta with collateral
for its initial deposit.
In June 2009, meetings occurred in Toronto between Greta and
Burgess. During these meetings, the parties amended the contract
such that Greta agreed to transfer the initial deposit of €2
million, without being provided with immediate collateral.
Following this, the transfer of the initial deposit went from a
Greta bank account in Dubai into another Dubai bank account in the
name of Innovatis Asset Management SA, an Austrian company 50%
owned by the appellant/defendant and South African resident, Robert
de Lange. de Lange then received in his personal bank account
approximately €423,000 of the Greta's monies, transferred
from Innovatis Asset Management at the direction of Burgess.
Ultimately, the initial deposit was never returned to Greta, nor
did Greta ever receive any funding for the project. Burgess was
investigated and pled guilty in the United States to conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and money laundering for his involvement in this
transaction and other crimes.
Greta commenced proceedings against de Lange in Ontario. On a
motion to stay or strike the claim against de Lange for lack of
jurisdiction, the judge at first instance concluded that Ontario
had jurisdiction due to: 1) the meetings in Toronto, which were
alleged to have been acts in furtherance of a conspiracy between
Burgess and de Lange; and 2) the contract connected with the
dispute was made in Ontario.
In dismissing de Lange's appeal, the Court of Appeal held
that, "... the renegotiation of the contract, which
clearly took place in Toronto, was itself an act in furtherance of
the conspiracy and sufficient to locate the conspiracy in
This decision is an example of the willingness of Ontario Courts
to assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, who apart from his
involvement in the alleged conspiracy, has no other apparent
connection to Ontario. This decision also provides some clarity
with respect to how a plaintiff alleging conspiracy can satisfy one
of the presumptive factors, being a tort committed in Ontario, in
order for an Ontario Court to assume jurisdiction over that
1 Counsel for Greta were Thomas Dunne Q.C. and Mark Crane
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).