Case information

Private International Law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Respondents alleging applicants in default on loans, commencing proceedings in Singapore and Dubai for recovery — Applicants commencing action in Ontario, seeking anti-suit injunction to enjoin respondents from pursuing foreign proceedings — Motion judge denying anti-suit injunction, granting permanent stay of Ontario proceeding — Whether the current framework for assessing jurisdiction, set out in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, should be modified to provide litigants with greater certainty — Whether a failed anti-suit injunction should automatically result in a stay of the domestic proceeding — Whether evidentiary review and fact-finding by motion judges should be restrained

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants (together, “UDG”) are metal traders operating in Asia and the Middle East. The various corporate applicants were incorporated in Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai, and the British Virgin Islands. The individual applicant, Prateek Gupta, is a Dubai resident.

Respondents TransAsia Private Capital Limited and TA Private Capital Security Agent Ltd. (together, “TAP”), operating out of Singapore, Hong Kong, and the British Virgin Islands, provide financing to metal traders. TAP provided financing to both UDG and the respondent Rutmet Inc. (“Rutmet”) over the years.

Rutmet, which purchases metal and metal products for sale to third-party buyers, was incorporated in Ontario. As part of a loan arrangement, Rutmet provided TAP with a power of attorney, which authorized TAP to take certain actions in relation to Rutmet’s unpaid receivables.

Respondent Export Development Canada (EDC) is a Canadian Crown corporation that provided Rutmet with trade credit insurance. Rutmet has supplied metal to certain UDG subsidiaries under trade contracts that were insured by EDC.

Following difficulties in the international commodities market, TAP claimed UDG was in default on tens of millions of dollars in loans. TAP commenced proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, both on its own behalf and by using the power of attorney granted by Rutmet, to recover debts allegedly owed by UDG.

Shortly afterwards, UDG commenced an action in Ontario seeking damages and declaratory relief. UDG then moved for an anti-suit injunction to enjoin TAP from pursuing its litigation in Dubai and Singapore, in favour of the Ontario proceedings. TAP brought a cross-motion for a permanent stay of the Ontario action on the basis that the foreign jurisdictions in which litigation was already underway were more appropriate jurisdictions than Ontario.