Robert Wilmer Becker

This decision provides supplementary reasons for costs following two motions brought by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's motions to set aside an administrative dismissal and to set aside an earlier order were unsuccessful against the Kendall Defendants.

The Kendall Defendants sought over $12,000 in partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The court found the plaintiff's motions were not unreasonable but ultimately unsuccessful.

It declined to award elevated costs due to a lack of reprehensible conduct by either party.

Considering the simplicity of the legal issues, overlap in motions, external difficulties (lost court file), and the plaintiff's financial circumstances, the court significantly reduced the requested costs, fixing them at $1,500 total, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 180 days.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside service and stay an Ontario action arising from a trip and fall accident that occurred in a retail store in New York State.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction over the foreign defendant using the real and substantial connection test and whether Ontario should decline jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Applying the framework from Van Breda, the court found significant connections between the plaintiffs’ claim and Ontario, including residency, damages, and treatment occurring in the province, as well as sufficient connection between Ontario and the defendant due to its participation in an international retail organization and cross‑border advertising through its website.

The court also concluded that Ontario remained the appropriate forum because most witnesses and evidence were located in Ontario and proceeding there would not be unfair to the defendant.

The motion to stay the proceedings was dismissed.