Kaleigh Marissa Dryla

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer his wrongful dismissal action from Toronto to Sarnia, citing the declining health of his wife who required his care.

The defendants opposed the transfer.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While acknowledging the plaintiff's caregiving responsibilities, the court noted that the other parties and counsel were located closer to Toronto, and the corporate defendant operated virtually.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that Sarnia was a significantly better venue and dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment dismissing her claim for professional negligence and breach of contract against real estate agents on the basis that the action was statute barred under section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The underlying dispute arose from the sale of a property in 2008-2009, with the appellant alleging that the real estate agents improperly induced her to sign a counter-offer and presented it against her instructions.

The appellant commenced the action in 2015, claiming she only discovered her claim during an examination for discovery in March 2015.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant should have known of her claim well before commencing the action, particularly after obtaining a real estate licence and taking real estate courses that would have put her on notice to make further inquiries.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(d), arguing the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff, an inactive corporation with its only asset being the claim, argued impecuniosity.

The court found the defendant met the low threshold for insufficient assets.

The onus shifted to the plaintiff to prove impecuniosity, which requires demonstrating that the corporation and its shareholders cannot raise funds for security.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding its sole shareholder's financial resources.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $7,500 in security for costs, significantly less than the $45,000 sought by the defendant, finding the defendant's claim excessive for a simplified procedure action.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the defence or compel document delivery/settlement was dismissed, with the defendant ordered to deliver documents after security is posted.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $1,200 for the defendant, accounting for their overreach on the security amount.