The defendant insurer moved for an order that three related actions arising from a hotel parking garage collapse be tried together and transferred from Toronto to Kingston.
The actions included an insurance coverage claim and two negligence actions against contractors and engineers.
Applying Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors articulated in prior jurisprudence, the court held that the actions shared common issues of causation and overlapping damages evidence, such that trial together would avoid duplication of witnesses and inconsistent findings.
Although the insurance action was procedurally more advanced and delay in bringing the motion was noted, the efficiencies of a single trial outweighed the prejudice alleged by the plaintiff.
The court also found that Kingston was a significantly more appropriate venue under Rule 13.1.02 because the events, damages, subject property, and most parties were connected to Kingston.
