Manitoba court keeps director in investor’s guaranteed returns lawsuit
She filed her lawsuit on September 8, 2025. Norgrow and the director pushed back hard, arguing the case was an abuse of process, improperly served, and belonged in England and Wales rather than Manitoba. A November 2025 ruling rejected the abuse-of-process argument and confirmed service was valid, though it left the jurisdiction fight for another day. The pair tried again in March 2026, this time asking the court to drop the director from the case entirely.
Justice Woolley was not persuaded. On jurisdiction, the judge pointed to Norgrow’s steady Manitoba roots: the company incorporated there and kept renewing that registration every year, and the subscription agreement itself named Manitoba courts as the place to settle disputes. The director’s UK residence and the company’s overseas operations were not enough to send the case abroad.
On the personal-liability question, the court found the investor’s allegations, that the director acted in bad faith and put his own interests ahead of hers, were enough to let her case against him move forward. The allegations remain unproven, but they clear the bar needed to survive a motion to strike.
Norgrow and its director now have 30 days to file their defence.
For wealth professionals, the takeaway is simple. Personal promises to investors carry personal risk. Calling a return guaranteed, and then not delivering, can pull a director into a lawsuit long after the paperwork is signed, especially when that paperwork ties the company to a Canadian court.
