The defendant brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking to stay the plaintiff’s action or alternatively transfer the proceeding from Thunder Bay to the Toronto Small Claims Court.
The dispute concerned the alleged failure to return an insurance deposit under a contract following the termination of a franchise relationship.
The court considered Rule 6 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court and the governing principle in Rule 1.03 emphasizing the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of proceedings.
The judge concluded the dispute primarily involved interpretation of a single written agreement, likely requiring minimal witness evidence.
The defendant failed to establish that the balance of convenience substantially favoured a transfer of venue, particularly given concerns about access to justice and the advanced stage of the proceeding in Thunder Bay.
