Marcus Rozsa

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from Sudbury (Northeast Region) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer and brought a cross-motion requesting that, if a transfer was necessary, it should be to Gore Bay in the Northeast Judicial Region.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable.

The defendants did not establish that their proposed venue was significantly better.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Shelley Brown, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Security National Insurance Company, to produce a second representative from its Product Department for a further examination for discovery, and to answer certain refusals from a prior discovery.

The motion arose from a dispute over an insurance claim following the theft of Brown’s vehicle and the handling of her claim under a discontinued 5-Year Replacement Cost Solution endorsement.

The court found that the criteria for ordering a further examination were not met, as the existing representative had provided undertakings and the answers sought could be obtained without undue expense or inconvenience.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations and to extend the time for serving expert reports.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants had no reasonable explanation for their significant delay in complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure and a consent timetable order.

The court applied the conjunctive test under Rule 53.08, which requires both a reasonable explanation for the failure and that granting leave would not cause non-compensable prejudice or undue delay.

The court found that the defendants' explanations, including a long-standing intention to obtain reports, misunderstanding of deadlines, and inadvertence over an eight-year period, did not constitute a reasonable explanation.

As the first part of the test was not met, the motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded costs.

The defendant MPW Industrial Services Inc. brought a motion to dismiss or stay a personal injury action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not a convenient forum.

The plaintiff, a truck driver, was injured in Ohio when cargo negligently loaded in Ontario dislodged.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on a real and substantial connection, as two other defendants were domiciled in Ontario and the alleged tortious acts (negligent loading) occurred in Ontario.

The court also determined that Ohio was not clearly a more appropriate forum, considering factors such as comparative convenience, applicable law, multiplicity of proceedings, enforcement, and fairness and efficiency.

The motion was dismissed.