The moving municipal defendant sought an order transferring a negligence action concerning alleged structural defects in a residential property from Toronto to London.
The plaintiffs resisted the transfer, arguing their presumptive right to choose venue and asserting that maintaining the action in Toronto would enhance efficiency and access to justice.
Applying the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the property, alleged damage, parties, witnesses, and community interest were all centered in London.
The court also rejected arguments that Toronto’s procedural advantages or the location of plaintiffs’ counsel justified maintaining the action there.
Concluding that the action had no rational connection to Toronto and that the interests of justice favoured London, the court ordered the transfer.
