3 total
Venue transfer motion dismissed as moving party failed to show proposed venue was significantly better.
The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to transfer the application to remove him as estate trustee from Hamilton to the Toronto Region.
The applicant opposed the transfer, having chosen Hamilton due to its proximity to his residence and medical practice.
Applying the holistic test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the moving party failed to establish that the proposed venue was significantly better than the applicant's choice.
The motion was dismissed.
Successful plaintiff awarded reduced costs despite recovery within Small Claims monetary jurisdiction.
Following a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff the return of a $22,000 deposit and dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim, the court addressed costs.
The defendant argued that because the plaintiff’s recovery fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the plaintiff should be denied costs under rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court held that denial of costs under rule 57.05(1) is discretionary and not automatic, particularly where the litigation involved complexity and a multi‑day trial.
Considering the defendant’s role in causing the dispute and the complexity of the proceedings, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the plaintiff.
Applying proportionality and the factors under rule 57.01, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $27,500.
Defendant breached sale of goods contract by demanding payment before unloading equipment; plaintiff awarded deposit return.
The plaintiff purchased refrigeration equipment from the defendant for a new retail meat store.
A dispute arose over the payment terms, specifically whether the balance was due before or after the equipment was unloaded at the plaintiff's premises.
The court found that the parties had orally agreed payment would be due only after delivery and installation, making the defendant's refusal to unload the equipment without prior payment a breach of contract.
However, the court held the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages by refusing to pick up the equipment from the defendant's warehouse, limiting its recovery to the return of its $22,000 deposit.
