Magnum also relies on subrule 17.02(g). While not mentioned in the statement of claim as a basis for service outside Ontario, it was relied upon in Magnum’s factum. There is simply nothing in the evidence to suggest that any tort was committed by the defendants in Ontario. If Magnum’s property was used or passed off, that occurred in Connecticut and in the jurisdictions in which Intergrated has customers. Magnum relies on work done by Intergrated for Wolverine Ratcliffs Inc. (“Wolverine”), in Fergus, Ontario, However, the relationship was long known by Magnum, involved the supply of less than $15,000 of parts between 1997 and 2001 and ended shortly before Wolverine’s operations in Canada closed in 2002. While Intergrated may, some years ago, “have dipped a small toe in Ontario”, I do not believe that to be sufficient to satisfy Rule 17.02(g): Unity Life of Canada v. Worthington Emond Beaudin Services Financieres Inc.reflex, (2009), 96 O.R. (3d) 769 (S.C.J.) (“Unity Life”) (paras. 32-33).
 … As already stated, the connection between Magnum’s claim and Ontario is small. If Intergrated misused propriety information and trademarks, converted property or interfered with contractual relations, it did so in Connecticut and in the other jurisdictions in which it carries on business.
 The activity which caused Magnum to commence these proceedings occurred in China. Mr. Healey submits the fact Intergrated’s website can be accessed from Ontario and mentions two of the trade-marks is sufficient connection. With respect, I do not agree. The website was created and is maintained in the United States. The website does not even mention Ontario or, indeed, Canada. The appropriateness of the references to SENDZIMIR and Z-MILL on the website will presumably be addressed in Connecticut by reason of the Sendzimir complaint. Intergrated has already deleted mention of the trade-marks from its website to eliminate the issue going forward. The website is not, with respect, demonstrable or weighty.
 My comments with respect to the employees of Intergrated apply to the individual defendants Messrs. Herbst, Jin and Vaitheeswaean (described in the statement of claim as Vaitheeswarun). They are not Canadian, do not reside or carry on business here or have cause to come to Ontario for any reason. If the individual defendants owe Magnum fiduciary duties they arose in Connecticut where Jones & Lamson carried on business and have been breached during their tenure with Intergrated in that same State.”
Grace, J. concludes,
 Weighing the evidence introduced to date, it seems to me inappropriate and unfair to accept jurisdiction. The defendants are, in every sense of the word, strangers to Ontario. Their connection is essentially limited to the fact a competitor, Magnum, is based here. That is not, in my view, nearly enough. If a foreign court were to accept jurisdiction in comparable circumstances, I cannot imagine Ontario being willing to recognize and enforce a judgment rendered over an Ontario based defendant’s jurisdictional challenge. Indeed, in my view, the proceeding would smack of an unhealthy dose of protectionism which would be difficult to accept as appropriate. The action should be stayed. I agree that “a defendant can reasonably be brought within the embrace of a foreign jurisdiction’s law where he or she has participated in something of significance or was actively involved in that foreign jurisdiction” but, as outlined already and addressed further in these reasons, that is not the case here: Beals v. Saldhana, 2003 SCC 72 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 416 at para. 32.
Justice Grace found that “Connecticut is clearly the more convenient forum for this action…” but even had jurisdiction simpliciter been established, he would have stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens. (at para. 33-34, citations omitted).