3 total
Court rejected forum shopping and ordered transfer motion for misplaced venue.
The Local Administrative Judge in Hamilton raised, sua sponte, the issue of whether a civil action for recovery of investment funds had any rational connection to Hamilton.
Neither the parties, the property, the subject matter, the events, nor the lawyers had any connection to Hamilton; all connections were to the Central West and Toronto Judicial Regions.
The plaintiffs argued they had legitimate concerns about fairness in Central West due to the defendants' significant local presence and over fifty similar actions in the region, but the court rejected the allegations of bias as without foundation.
Relying on the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction, the court found the plaintiffs' venue choice was not a legitimate exercise of procedural rights and ordered the plaintiffs to bring a written motion to the RSJ in Central West for transfer of the proceeding.
The action was stayed pending that determination.
Summary judgment granted dismissing third-party claim against maintenance contractor; TSB opinions ruled inadmissible.
Following a train derailment and tankcar failure, the main action was settled.
The remaining parties brought summary judgment motions regarding third-party claims and contractual indemnity.
The court ruled that opinions in a Transportation Safety Board report are inadmissible, but factual observations are admissible.
The court also interpreted an indemnity clause under Illinois law, finding it did not require the lessee to indemnify the lessor for the lessor's own negligence.
Finally, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim against the maintenance contractor, finding no evidence of a duty to inspect the failed welds and that the claims were barred by the US doctrine of preemption.
The court ordered the defendant to answer outstanding discovery undertakings and refusals and to re-attend for further examination.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of a representative of the defendant Intercontinental Hotels Group (Canada) Inc. (IHG), and an order for re-attendance on discovery.
The parties consented to answering some undertakings.
The court ordered IHG to answer additional undertakings and refusals, finding some questions relevant to the pleadings, including one regarding the reasonableness of having a doorman.
A re-attendance for 1.5 hours was ordered due to the number and nature of outstanding discovery issues.
Costs of $1,500.00 were awarded to the plaintiff.
