Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
 All of the events at issue involving Ms. Lee took place in the
Province of Quebec. Ms. Lee was served at her place of employment
 By written endorsement dated October 26, 2017, I directed
I do not understand how Ontario has jurisdiction over this claim. If it does,
were the torts not committed in Quebec, and does not the law of Quebec
apply to these? This is a very serious claim — I would like to see evidence of
service of process on the defendant. Please address these three concerns and
then re-submit the motion to D.L. Corbett J.; I am seized.2
 The statement of claim alleges that Ms. Lee is a resident of
Ontario (para. 2). This is an allegation of fact and is deemed to be
true by reason of rule 19.02(1).
 The parties met in September 2013 while they were both
students at McGill University’s Schulich School of Music.
Mr. Abramovitz had lived his entire life in Quebec. Before
attending McGill, Ms. Lee had lived with her parents in Ontario.
Her parents continued to live in Ontario while she attended
McGill. Ms. Lee maintained a residence at her parents’ home
while she was away at school in Montreal, and spent her summers at home in Ontario. As disclosed in the supplementary
affidavit evidence filed in response to this court’s endorsement
of October 26, 2017, Ms. Lee was living with her parents in
Ontario at the time the statement of claim was issued. She had
returned to Quebec for the 2016–17 school year by the time the
statement of claim was served. I am satisfied from the facts
alleged in the statement of claim, which are deemed to be true,
and from the supplementary evidence filed by the plaintiff, that
Ms. Lee was domiciled in both Ontario and Quebec, and ordinarily resident in Ontario, at the time of the events in issue. Thus,
Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter over the claims against
Ms. Lee: residence is the first presumptive connecting factor
2 The service issue was addressed by providing the court with the affidavit of
service, as noted above, in para. 3.
3 Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda,  1 S.C.R. 572,  S.C.J. No. 17,
2012 SCC 17, para. 90.