Law360 Canada ( September 25, 2026, 9:10 AM EDT) -- Appeals by appellants (Loader and Sortepax Holdings Limited (Sortepax)) from dismissal of motions to stay claims brought against them in two related actions. The respondents alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, deceit and unjust enrichment. The appellants argued that the Manitoba courts lacked jurisdiction over the claims or, alternatively, should decline jurisdiction because Manitoba was not the convenient forum. They also argued that arbitration agreements required the disputes to be determined by arbitration. The respondents resided in Manitoba. The finance agreements were entered into between 10031670 Manitoba Ltd. and Sortepax. The respondents alleged that representations were made to them, relied upon by them in Manitoba, and that they suffered loss in Manitoba after the proceeds of monetization were never received and the deposits were not returned. The judge concluded that the torts of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy were committed in Manitoba, that presumptive connecting factors were established, that Manitoba had jurisdiction simpliciter, that Manitoba was the appropriate forum, and that the arbitration agreements did not apply, were void because of the fraud allegations, or alternatively were incapable of being performed. On appeal, the appellants argued that the judge erred in her application of the principles governing jurisdiction simpliciter, conflated jurisdiction simpliciter with forum non conveniens, and failed to apply or incorrectly applied the principles applicable to staying proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement....