The Plaintiff served Parklane U.S. ex juris and Parklane U.S. brought this Application disputing service. Parklane U.S. stated that service was not valid because of a failure by the Plaintiff to attach a document or Affidavit that set out the grounds for service outside of Canada and also because there was no good arguable case. Kent J. began by stating that there was no dispute that the test for valid service ex juris was a good arguable case. Citing prior case law, Her Ladyship set out that a good arguable case was not fanciful or speculative, but grounded on some evidence upon which an objective trier would say that “on the basis of the facts presented, the case is arguable and not to be dismissed out of hand”. In this case, it was held that the Plaintiff provided evidence that showed a relationship between the executives of Parklane U.S. and other Defendants which would allow a Trial Judge to draw inferences about what occurred. This was sufficient for demonstrating a good arguable case and Kent J. held that, given such a finding, the issue about the technical service deficiency became moot. Service of the claim on Parklane U.S. was valid.