Mary-Anne C. Strong

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a motor vehicle accident action from Guelph to London, seeking to consolidate it with a separate London action against the plaintiff's long-term disability insurer.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors holistically, found that the cause of action, damages, and subject matter were Guelph-centric.

It determined that the convenience of parties and witnesses did not favor London, and transferring would significantly delay the Guelph trial, which was already on the trial list.

The motion was dismissed, upholding the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose venue and emphasizing the negative financial impact of delay on the plaintiff.

This motion concerned the amendment of a statement of claim for statutory accident benefits (SABs) to include claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits denied post-issuance and a declaration of catastrophic impairment.

The action was commenced prior to 2016 amendments to the Insurance Act which removed the right to bring actions for SABs disputes, redirecting them to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The court granted the amendment, finding that the proposed changes constituted a particularization of claims already broadly pleaded in the original statement of claim, rather than new disputes arising after the statutory amendments.

The court emphasized the policy against multiplicity of proceedings and the potential for inconsistent findings if claims were bifurcated between the Superior Court and the LAT.