Lawrence Hatfield

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the TTC failed to establish that the proposed Toronto venue was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen Hamilton venue, or that the transfer was desirable in the interest of justice, especially given the late stage of the proceedings and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

In a personal injury action arising from a car–train collision, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine a second representative of a railway defendant for discovery.

The defendant had already produced a signal inspector responsible for inspecting and maintaining the railway crossing involved in the collision.

The moving party argued that another representative, possibly a general manager, should be examined regarding decisions about upgrading signal equipment and crossing design.

The court held that the moving party had already conducted an extensive examination and had not sought undertakings to obtain further information.

It was not established that satisfactory answers could not be obtained from a single representative without undue expense and inconvenience.

The motion for leave to examine a second representative was therefore dismissed with costs.