The defendants brought a cross-motion to stay the plaintiff's Toronto action in favour of their own Windsor action, which involved the same parties and overlapping issues arising from a share purchase agreement.
The court applied the four-factor test under Rule 21.01(3)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although the plaintiff bore the chief burden of proof and its claim was more comprehensive, the court found that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the defendants, as the parties, the dispute, and the alleged torts were all located in Essex County.
The cross-motion was granted, and the Toronto action was stayed with leave to convert it into a counterclaim in the Windsor action.
