Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction hinged on whether the Alberta-based church was “carrying on business” in Ontario through the plaintiffs’ ministry activities and church plant.
• The presence and effect of a forum selection and governing law clause in the Service Agreement, favouring Alberta courts and Alberta law, were central to the forum non conveniens analysis.
• Evidence about the practical control of the relationship from Alberta (oversight, payments, approval of expenses, donations flow) weighed heavily in favour of Alberta as the more appropriate forum.
• The characterization of the plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees under the Service Agreement undercut their reliance on Ontario employment standards, at least for this motion.
• Proof of effective service, including personal service in Alberta and email to the lawyer who sent the termination letter, was accepted despite the jurisdictional stay.
• Ultimately, the defendants showed that enforcing the forum selection clause and litigating in Alberta would be fair and efficient, leading to a stay of the Ontario action on forum non conveniens grounds.

Background and parties

The case arises from a dispute between two pastors, spouses Eric Apenteng and Robine Kahorongo, and the religious organizations The Citadel International Church (TCIC) and House of Glory International Pentecostal Ministry. The plaintiffs relocated from Alberta to Ontario to establish and lead a Toronto-area branch of TCIC under a written Service Agreement. They later sued in Ontario, claiming unpaid salary, unpaid vacation pay, breach of contract, reimbursement of expenses and related relief after their relationship with the church was terminated in July 2025. The defendants responded not by addressing the merits of the monetary claims, but by bringing a procedural motion under Rule 21.01(3)(a) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. They asked the court to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively to stay it based on a mandatory Alberta governing law and jurisdiction clause, or further in the alternative under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. They also challenged the validity of service of the statement of claim.

The service agreement and contractual structure

The Service Agreement was executed in Alberta on November 1, 2022, between House of Glory International Pentecostal Ministry as the “Church” and the plaintiffs as the “Minister”. At the time the contract was signed, the plaintiffs resided in Alberta. The Background clauses emphasize that the Church is registered under Alberta law and is based in Edmonton, while the plaintiffs agreed to perform ministry services in accordance with the Agreement. A key feature of the arrangement was relocation: under the description of services, the plaintiffs were required to relocate to Ontario and “plant a local branch of the Church” there, lead that local branch in line with biblical teachings, administer the branch, supervise staff, promote the Church’s interests and values, and carry out duties assigned by the Senior Pastors. Their work in Ontario remained under the direct oversight of Pastor Olanrewaju (Lanre) Smith and Pastor Elizabeth Smith, to whom they were required to report and to submit monthly activity reports.

The contract also dealt expressly with remuneration and legal characterization. It stated that the plaintiffs were not employees as that term is defined in relevant provincial employment standards laws, and that they were acting as independent contractors under “a contract for service” rather than a contract of employment. The Agreement provided for a one-time relocation allowance of CAD 10,000, payable in a lump sum around the time of departure from Edmonton to Ontario. It contained an entire agreement clause confirming that it superseded prior understandings, and an independent legal advice clause in which the plaintiffs acknowledged they had the opportunity to obtain advice and either did so or chose not to before signing.

Most crucially for this motion, the Agreement included a governing law and jurisdiction provision. It provided that the Agreement would be governed by the laws of Alberta and that the parties agreed to attorn to the jurisdiction of arbitrators and the courts in Alberta. This forum selection clause later became the centrepiece of the defendants’ argument that Ontario should decline jurisdiction and defer to Alberta as the proper forum for the dispute.

Termination of the relationship and alleged breaches

On July 4, 2025, the plaintiffs received a termination letter from lawyer Idowu Ohioze, who stated that he had been retained by TCIC. The letter recounted several alleged breaches of the Service Agreement by the plaintiffs. These included failure since November 2024 to submit the mandatory monthly activity reports to the Senior Pastors, contrary to the duty to report clause; alleged unauthorized removal of the TCIC name and logo from all church publications in Ontario; and serious concerns that the plaintiffs had brought the local TCIC branch under the “covering” of a controversial denomination based in Korea and were no longer teaching or ministering TCIC doctrines at the Ontario branch. The letter asserted that these infractions amounted to breaches justifying termination of the Agreement and demanded the return of TCIC property.

The plaintiffs then commenced their Ontario action on November 3, 2025, seeking damages for unpaid salary, vacation pay, breach of contract and expenses. The next day they emailed the statement of claim to the same lawyer who had written the termination letter. Later, an Alberta process server personally served each defendant at their place of business by leaving the claim with the Operations Manager. These service steps became relevant when the defendants argued that service was defective under Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Jurisdiction simpliciter and business presence in Ontario

The first major issue was whether Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter over the action. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Van Breda framework, the court looked for recognized “presumptive connecting factors,” including whether the defendants were carrying on business in Ontario or whether a relevant contract was made in Ontario. The defendants asserted that they were purely Alberta-based: they had no office, operations, or formal organizational structure in Ontario; the contract was executed in Alberta; and oversight, decision-making and termination all occurred in Alberta.

The court accepted that the contract itself was not formed in Ontario and that the decision to terminate the plaintiffs was made in Alberta. However, it focused on whether the defendants were “carrying on business” in Ontario through the plaintiffs’ activities. The evidence, though limited, showed that the plaintiffs had secured and rented locations for TCIC services in Ontario, advertised and held services, and accepted donations from attendees, all as part of the TCIC ministry. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were in Ontario performing religious services and collecting donations on behalf of the defendants, thereby conducting the defendants’ business operations in the province. This was sufficient to find that the “carrying on business” connecting factor was present and that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter over the dispute.

Forum selection clause and forum non conveniens

Having found that Ontario could assume jurisdiction in principle, the court turned to whether it should nonetheless decline jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In doing so, the judge applied the principles from Young v. Tyco International, Novatrax and Z.I. Pompey Industrie, which emphasize that where parties have agreed to a clear forum selection clause in a commercial contract, courts will generally enforce it unless the plaintiff shows “strong cause” not to do so. The analysis required the court to examine the convenience of the parties, fairness, the interests of justice, and the relative connections of Alberta and Ontario to the dispute.

The judge held that the forum selection clause in the Service Agreement was clear, valid on its face, and applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims. There was no evidence of fraud, gross inequality of bargaining power, or public policy concerns that would justify disregarding the clause. Although Mr. Apenteng attested that the Agreement was not provided in advance and that they were asked to sign and backdate it, the court emphasized that a person who signs a contract is normally bound by its terms, including an acknowledgment that they had an opportunity to seek independent legal advice.

Weighing the broader forum non conveniens factors, the judge noted that the entire supervisory and financial structure of the ministry relationship was centered in Alberta. The Senior Pastors in Alberta directed and controlled the plaintiffs’ activities, approved expenses, and received donations. The contract was prepared and executed in Alberta and expressly designated Alberta as the governing law and jurisdiction. There was no evidence that witnesses could not attend or participate remotely in proceedings in Alberta, nor that the plaintiffs would lose a legitimate juridical advantage there. The plaintiffs’ assertion of entitlement to Ontario Employment Standards Act protections was treated as weak at this preliminary stage, given the contract’s clear independent contractor language and termination terms. The court also observed that the defendants’ assets were located in Alberta, which was relevant to enforcement of any potential judgment.

In light of these considerations and the strong starting presumption in favour of enforcing the forum selection clause, the court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated “strong cause” to depart from the contractual choice of Alberta. Alberta was held to be the clearly more appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute, and the Ontario action was ordered stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Service of the claim and procedural completeness

Although the stay disposed of the Ontario proceeding, the judge addressed the service issue for completeness. The court found that effective service had been made. Personal service in Alberta on a person appearing to manage the defendants’ business satisfied the Rules, and service outside Ontario was permitted under Rule 17.02(p) because the defendants were carrying on business in Ontario through the plaintiffs’ activities. The email of the statement of claim to the lawyer who had authored the termination letter, and that lawyer’s earlier communications on behalf of the defendants, supported the conclusion that the defendants had actual notice of the claim. The fact that they were able to bring and argue the jurisdictional motion confirmed that they had been properly apprised of the proceeding.

Outcome and monetary consequences

In the result, the defendants succeeded on their motion. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to exercise jurisdiction and stayed the action, leaving any merits-based determination of unpaid salary, vacation pay, breach of contract and expenses to be litigated, if at all, in Alberta. The court did not decide any of the plaintiffs’ substantive claims or award any damages or other monetary relief. As for costs, the judge encouraged the parties to reach agreement and, failing that, set a timetable for brief written costs submissions, leaving the quantum unresolved at the time the reasons were released. Accordingly, the successful parties in this decision are the defendants, The Citadel International Church and House of Glory International Pentecostal Ministry, and no specific total amount of damages, costs or monetary award can be determined from this judgment, as neither damages nor quantified costs were ordered in favour of any party.