By Cameron A. Axford and Martin U. Wissmath

In Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v. OpenAI Inc., decided on November 7, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a significant motion ruling relating to jurisdiction, allowing Canadian news media organizations to pursue claims against U.S.-based artificial intelligence development company, OpenAI, which develops and operates ChatGPT, and its various legal entities (“OpenAI”) in Ontario. While the decision does not address the merits of the underlying allegations, it represents an important development in the evolving legal landscape governing artificial intelligence (AI), copyright, and cross-border enforcement. At its core, the ruling confirms that Canadian courts may have jurisdiction to hear claims arising from the development and commercialization of AI systems where there is a meaningful connection to Canada, even if key aspects of the technology are developed or operated abroad.

The plaintiffs, a group of major Canadian news media organizations including the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and the CBC, allege that OpenAI built and trained its large language models, including ChatGPT, by misappropriating their proprietary content without authorization or compensation. According to the claim, OpenAI accessed and copied content from the plaintiffs’ websites and digital platforms to train its AI models, reproduced copyrighted works without permission contrary to the Copyright Act, circumvented technological protection measures and breached online terms of use that prohibit commercial exploitation of content, and commercially exploited the resulting models by offering subscription-based AI products and services to individual and enterprise users in Canada, including through partnerships with third parties like Microsoft. The plaintiffs characterize these activities as giving rise to claims for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

OpenAI brought a preliminary motion seeking to set aside service of the claim and stay the proceedings, arguing that Ontario was not an appropriate forum and that Canadian courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. OpenAI contended that Canadian copyright law is territorially limited and cannot apply to alleged acts occurring outside Canada, such as model training on servers located in the United States, that the Ontario court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and that the United States was a more appropriate forum for resolving novel legal questions relating to AI development.

Justice Kimmel rejected most of OpenAI’s jurisdictional arguments and permitted the action to proceed in Ontario against the principal operating and parent entities. The Court emphasized that subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry and that, as a court of general jurisdiction, the Ontario Superior Court has authority to hear claims sounding in copyright, contract, and unjust enrichment unless expressly removed by statute. The Court declined to entertain OpenAI’s substantive arguments about the territorial scope of the Copyright Act at this preliminary stage, holding that such issues go to the merits of the claim rather than the court’s jurisdiction to hear it.

In considering personal jurisdiction, the Court applied the “real and substantial connection” test and found a sufficient connection between Ontario and six of the ten named defendants. In particular, the Court accepted that there was a good arguable case that certain OpenAI entities carried on business in Ontario by collecting data from Canadian servers and offering AI services to Ontario users, that alleged copyright infringement occurred in Ontario through the transmission and reproduction of content within the province, and that contractual relationships may have arisen through OpenAI’s access to Ontario-based websites and alleged breach of online terms of use.

The Court also rejected OpenAI’s argument that the United States was a clearly more appropriate forum. In doing so, it noted that the claims are governed primarily by Canadian and Ontario law, that the plaintiffs are Canadian entities whose alleged losses were suffered in Canada, and that modern litigation tools reduce the practical burden of cross-border proceedings. As a result, Ontario was not displaced as the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The motion was granted with respect to four OpenAI-related entities that were not shown to be directly involved in the core activities alleged in the claim, such as certain startup and investment entities. However, the motion was dismissed for the six principal operating and parent companies, including OpenAI OpCo, LLC and OpenAI, Inc., allowing the action to proceed against them in Ontario.

Although the case arises from the news media sector, the decision has broader implications for Canadian charities and not-for-profits whose content may be used in the development of AI systems. It underscores that foreign AI developers may be subject to Canadian legal proceedings where there is a meaningful connection to Canada, including through data collection, contractual terms, or commercial activities. For charities and not-for-profits that publish original content, educational materials, or research online, the decision highlights the importance of clear website terms, governance policies, intellectual property protection and an understanding of how organizational content may be accessed and used in the AI ecosystem. The case will now proceed to be determined on its merits, and further developments will be closely watched by organizations operating in data-rich and digitally accessible environments.

​Read the January 2026 Charity & NFP Law Update