Despite the accident occurring in Brampton, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant both residing in Brampton, the Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion to have the action transferred from Toronto to Brampton.
Released April 11, 2017 | Full Decision [CanLII]
In this motion before Justice LeMay, the Defendants, Terence and Koshini Maisuria asserted the action should be transferred from Toronto to Brampton. They based their assertions on the fact the accident took place in Brampton, and both the Plaintiff and the Maisurias live in Brampton. The Defendant, Intact Insurance Company took no position on the motion.
The Plaintiff opposed the transfer arguing there is more connection to Toronto than to Brampton. Counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out the Plaintiff’s employer and family doctor, both of whom will be witnesses in the trial, are located in Toronto. Also the Plaintiff was seeking treatment from a clinic in Toronto and a psychologist in the north end of Toronto. Lastly, Intact Insurance is also located in Toronto.
In his analysis, Justice LeMay indicated the court is to consider the list of factors in rule 13.1.02(2) holistically. The moving party must show the proposed place of trial is not only better, but is significantly better, than the Plaintiff’s choice of trial. Justice LeMay went on to state:
“The Plaintiff is entitled, at first instance, to choose the venue for her action. She has chosen Toronto, which is a reasonable choice. In light of the fact, I should only transfer this action to Brampton if I believe that Brampton would be a substantially better venue for it. I cannot reach that conclusion on these facts.”
It was left open for the Defendants to bring the motion again as litigation developed, in particular, as the parties choose their experts and as the Plaintiff’s treatment regimen develops, which could change the balance set out above.
Read the full decision on CanLII
