Ontario Court Confirms Authority Over Challenges to AI Content Use

Case: Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v OpenAI Inc, 2025 ONSC 6217

Authors: Marian Wolanski and Renée Taillieu

On November 7, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court released its decision in Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v OpenAI Inc, 2025 ONSC 6217, clarifying the scope of the Ontario courts’ jurisdiction in a dispute concerning the alleged misuse of news content by OpenAI, the US-based developer of ChatGPT. In a preliminary jurisdiction motion, the Court refused to dismiss claims by several major Canadian media organizations alleging copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, finding that it had both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over six of the OpenAI defendants. The motion was granted, however, with respect to four OpenAI entities for which no involvement in the alleged conduct had been established.

Background

In November 2024, several leading Canadian news organizations, including Toronto Star, Metroland Media, Postmedia, PNI Maritimes, the Globe and Mail, the Canadian Press and CBC/SRC (collectively, the “News Media Companies”) commenced proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court against OpenAI and related entities (the “OpenAI Entities”). The action alleges copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from the crawling and scraping of web content, the use of that content to train AI large language models (LLMs), and the subsequent reproduction and use of the content for commercial purposes.

The US-based OpenAI Entities brought a motion to set aside service and to stay or dismiss the proceeding on the basis that the Ontario court lacked both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal (in personam) jurisdiction. The parties agreed that both forms of jurisdiction must be established for the action to proceed in Ontario.

 Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court confirmed that, in Canada, superior courts, unlike administrative tribunals or the Federal Court, generally possess inherent jurisdiction to hear a claim unless that authority has been displaced by legislation or an arbitral agreement. The OpenAI Entities argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the Copyright Act claims because the alleged infringing conduct occurred outside of Canada and the Act has no extraterritorial reach. The Court rejected this position, finding nothing in the Act that “ousts” its jurisdiction and noting that questions regarding the Act’s territorial scope are not relevant to subject matter jurisdiction. The Court reached a similar conclusion with respect to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, ultimately holding that it has jurisdiction over all of the asserted the claims.

Personal Jurisdiction

The Court first considered whether the OpenAI Entities had attorned (i.e., voluntarily submitted) to its jurisdiction by bringing the motion for subject matter jurisdiction. It rejected this argument, reiterating that attornment “is not entrapment” and requires a “deliberate voluntary act from which it can reasonably be inferred that the party was prepared to submit to the jurisdiction of the court”. The OpenAI Entities had made their intention to challenge jurisdiction clear from the outset, and the Court found no basis to conclude that they had attorned.

Turning to the issue of whether it had personal jurisdiction over each of the OpenAI Entities, the Court adopted the two-step analysis set out in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (“Van Breda”). First, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that there is some connection between the jurisdiction and the dispute. This may arise by presumption where there is a “good arguable case” that at least one of the following factors is present:

1. The defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;
2. The defendant carries on business in the province;
3. The tort was committed in the province;
4. A contract connected with the dispute was made in the province; and
5. Property relating to the asserted claims is located in the province.

Second, the defendants may rebut the presumption by showing that no “real and substantial connection” exists between the jurisdiction and the dispute.

The Court found several presumptive connecting factors were engaged. It concluded that a number of OpenAI Entities carry on business in Ontario by collecting data from Canadian websites and users, training AI models using that data, holding Canadian trademark registrations, and advertising to Ontario customers. The Court also found that a contract connected with the dispute, the News Media Companies’ Terms of Use, was made in Ontario. In addition, the Court found a “good arguable case” that several torts (copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment) had been committed in Ontario. Having failed to rebut these presumptive factors, the Court concluded it had personal jurisdiction over several (but not all) of the OpenAI Entities.

Forum Non Conveniens

The Court held that the OpenAI Entities had not shown that the United States was a clearly more appropriate, suitable, and convenient forum than Ontario to litigate the pleaded claims. Applying the Van Breda factors, the Court noted that the claims involve Canadian law, no parallel proceedings currently exist in the U.S., the possibility of similar claims arising in the U.S. is not dispositive, there is no evidence that any judgment would be unenforceable, and the fair and efficient working of the legal system favours allowing Canadian authors of Canadian-created works to pursue claims against foreign companies under Canadian law.

 Takeaways

This decision reinforces the broad jurisdictional authority of the Ontario courts to hear claims involving foreign AI companies and the alleged misuse of Canadian content. The OpenAI Entities have appealed, however, so this will not be the final word on the issue.