2 total
Venue transfer denied where moving defendants failed to show proposed forum significantly better.
The moving defendants sought an order transferring a personal injury action from Toronto to Kitchener under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The claim arose from a serious accident in which a child fell from a third‑storey apartment window in Waterloo, sustaining significant head injuries.
The court reviewed the holistic factors governing venue transfer, including the connection of the events to the community, convenience of parties and witnesses, availability of court facilities, and the plaintiff’s choice of forum.
Although the accident occurred in Waterloo Region, the court found the moving defendants failed to establish that Kitchener was significantly more desirable than Toronto, particularly given logistical support arrangements for the disabled child plaintiff and the location of counsel and expert witnesses.
The motion to transfer the venue was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; discoverability principle and special circumstances justified adding vehicle owner after limitation period expired.
The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident.
The police report and the defendant's initial pleadings identified the defendant driver as the owner of the vehicle.
After the two-year limitation period expired, the plaintiff obtained a vehicle ownership search revealing a leasing company was the actual owner.
The plaintiff successfully moved to add the leasing company as a defendant.
The third-party insurer appealed.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the discoverability principle, the plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered the true owner earlier.
Alternatively, special circumstances justified adding the defendant despite the expired limitation period.
