Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P)17-714-00 DATE: 2020 01 31

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Veronica Puls, for the Applicant

• and -

FRANCIS ANTOINE Accused Ronald Chu, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 18, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION

LEMAY J

[1] In my reasons of June 24th, 2019, I convicted the offender of two counts of trafficking in persons, two counts of procuring and one count of receiving a material benefit. These convictions relate to two separate complainants and two separate time periods. I must now impose a fit and proper sentence on the offender.

Overview

[2] The charges that the offender faced were related to two separate young women who the offender had engage in prostitution, both in the Greater Toronto Area. The first, K.G., worked in the sex trade at the offender’s behest for a period of several months in 2015 and early 2016. K.G. had previously worked in the sex trade in Northern Ontario.

[3] The second, S.S.F., worked in the sex trade at the offender’s behest for a period of a few days in February of 2017. Both K.G. and S.S.F. were addicted to various narcotics at the time that they were working for the offender, and the offender supplied them both with drugs while they were working in the sex trade.

[4] In respect of K.G., I found the offender guilty of trafficking in persons, procuring K.G. to become involved in the sex trade and receiving a material benefit from K.G.’s work in the sex trade. In respect of S.S.F., I found the offender guilty of trafficking in persons and procuring her to become a prostitute, but I had a reasonable doubt about whether the accused received a material benefit from S.S.F.’s work.

[5] The offender seeks a global sentence of five years. He argues that he should be sentenced to three years for the charges related to each of S.S.F. and K.G., reduced to account for totality. The offender also argues that the mandatory minimum of four (4) years for a conviction for a trafficking in persons offence set out in section 279.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code is a violation of section 12 of the Charter, either in his own case or in the case of a reasonable hypothetical offender. Finally, the offender argues that he should be entitled to 2 days for every day of pre-sentence custody that was served where he was in either full or partial lockdown.

[6] The Crown seeks a global sentence of ten years. The Crown argues that the mandatory minimum of four (4) years set out in section 279.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code is not a violation of the Charter. The Crown also opposes the offender’s request for a 2:1 credit on days when he was in lockdown.

Analytical Framework

[7] In R. v. Nur (2015 SCC 15), McLachlan C.J.C set out a framework for the analysis of cases where a violation of section 12 of the Charter is claimed. In considering the framework set out in Nur, I must address four questions:

a) What is the proportionate sentence for the offences? b) Does the mandatory minimum sentence require me to impose a sentence that is grossly disproportionate on the offender? c) If the answer to this second question is no, then are there other reasonably foreseeable offenders for whom the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate? d) If the answer to either the second or the third issue is yes, is the violation of section 12 of the Charter saved under section 1 of the Charter?

[8] In addition to analyzing the constitutional issues, I must also consider the question of whether the offender should be entitled to double credit for any of his pre-sentence custody.

[9] Once I have answered these questions, I must return and determine the actual sentence to impose on the offender.

[10] I should note at the outset that Crown counsel cited R. v. Lloyd (2016 SCC 13), [2016] S.C.J. No. 13 for the proposition that “judicial economy dictates that judges should not squander time and resources on matters they need not decide.” Crown Counsel argues that, if I determine that the mandatory minimum does not produce a grossly disproportionate sentence for this offender, I should not consider whether the mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional for other offenders.

[11] In many cases, counsel’s argument would be successful. However, Nur, supra requires a consideration of the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence even if the offender challenging the mandatory minimum would not be subject to a grossly disproportionate sentence as a result of the mandatory minimums (see the discussion in Nur, supra, at paragraphs 47 and following). In other words, when faced with a challenge to a mandatory minimum sentence, the Court must conduct a search for potential constitutional violations even if the case before the Court does not disclose a violation. I will conduct that search.

Issue #1- The Proportionate Sentence

[12] The consideration of the proportionate sentence requires me to consider the circumstances of the offender, the nature of the offence and the sentences that have been imposed in other cases. I will address each issue in turn.

a) The Circumstances of the Offender

[13] The offender has been in custody since March 19th, 2017. Both counsel agree that, as of today, the offender has spent 1,047 days in pre-sentence custody. I will return to the amount of credit to be provided for that custody at the end of these reasons.

[14] The offender is thirty-six years old. He describes his upbringing as stable and positive. His father was a carpenter and his mother was a lab technician. His parents divorced when he was seven years old. He does not have a relationship with his father. However, he has what he describes as a positive relationship with his mother and step-father, although his current contact with them is described as occasional.

[15] The offender has a sister and a brother, both of whom are older than he is. His brother has had interactions with law enforcement, but I am not aware of the details of those interactions. His sister was interviewed for the pre-sentence report. She stated that there was some domestic violence in the home when they were growing up prior to their parents’ separation. However, the offender’s sister also stated that once her parents separated, the offender was raised in a spiritual, family-oriented home where rules were enforced in the form of grounding and suspended privileges.

[16] However, the offender was involved with a negative peer group when he was in high school. In order to remove the offender from this peer group, his mother moved the family to Gananoque, Ontario in 1999. At that time, she bought a small hotel business.

[17] The offender has not lived with his mother and sister since he was sixteen. He moved to Ottawa to attend a local high school shortly after the family’s move to Gananoque. The offender completed his Ontario Secondary School Diploma. He denied having ever been suspended or expelled from school.

[18] The offender identified that he did have some learning issues and may have suffered from dyslexia. However, no formal diagnosis was provided in the evidence before me, and I had no further details about the offender’s experience in the education system.

[19] The offender testified that he was employed for a year in 2004 as a building superintendent in Ottawa. He maintained this employment until he was imprisoned for a previous offence. The offender claims to have been self-employed as a painter prior to 2011. However, there was no evidence tendered of this self-employment, and the probation officer was unable to find any evidence of the offender’s business.

[20] The offender was in a long-term relationship commencing when he was sixteen. This relationship lasted for twelve years. The offender’s former partner had an infant child from a previous relationship when they began dating. They have two children together, who are currently thirteen and eleven. The offender has a good relationship with his ex-partner and has contact with his children. During the course of their relationship, the offender and his then partner received social assistance according to the pre-sentence report.

[21] After the offender separated from his previous partner, he provided some support payments to her until he was incarcerated in March of 2017. He has not provided support payments since, although he remains in contact with the children and his ex-partner. I understand that this contact is by telephone on a weekly basis.

[22] The offender is currently in a relationship with a woman who is approximately ten years his junior. From the information that I have, this relationship began in 2016, and the offender’s current partner is aware of the issues before the Court. She was not interviewed for the purposes of the pre-sentence report.

[23] The offender has a lengthy criminal record. His record is as follows:

| Date of Conviction | Offence --- SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONS:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCESSING CASELAW FILES

You will receive a caselaw file in markdown (MD or MDX) format. Your task is to output the entire file in full, including:

• The complete YAML frontmatter.
• The complete caselaw text exactly as given.

Do not remove or modify any content except where explicitly instructed. Formatting, capitalization, and all other text must remain exactly as in the original.

1) Correct and Complete the YAML Frontmatter

• Ensure all frontmatter fields are accurate, complete, and in the correct format.
• If a field is missing or incorrect, fix it using details found in the caselaw text.
• The following fields must be checked, corrected and/or added:

Required fields to fill in and/or add:

• case_type (see Section 2 for rules)

• date_judgement (format: YYYY-MM-DD)

• date_heard (format: YYYY-MM-DD). Can be an array of dates if multiple hearings occurred. For example, date_heard: ["2022-01-01", "2022-02-01"]

• applicant (list of applicant names)

• applicant_counsel (list of counsel names, or "Self-represented")

• respondent (list of respondent names)

• respondent_counsel (list of counsel names, or "Self-represented")

• judge (full name, without title). Can be an array of judges if multiple judges presided over the case. For example, `judge: ["John Doe", "Jane Smith"]

• summary (A incisive summary of the case written in legalese for lawyers to read, as they seek case law to match their fact pattern. Do not include individual names or initials here.)

• interesting_citations_summary (An incisive summary focusing on case law matching of their fact pattern, judicial reasoning, and legal principles. Do not include individual names or initials here.)

• final_judgement (The final judgement of the case stated if short or summerized if long.

• winning_degree_applicant: A number from 1 (won 100%) to 5 (won 0%) to the degree to which the applicant won.

• winning_degree_respondent: A number from 1 (won 100%) to 5 (won 0%) to the degree to which the respondent won.

• judge_bias_applicant: A number from 0 (biased 0%) to 5 (biased 100%) to the degree to which the judge seemed biased towards the applicant.

• judge_bias_respondent: A number from 0 (biased 0%) to 5 (biased 100%) to the degree to which the judge seemed biased towards the respondent.

--

Cited Cases and Legislation

• Review the cited_cases section:
• Remove duplicates or obvious errors.
• Separate into two sections:
  • legislation: → laws and statutes.
  • case_law: → previous judicial decisions.
• Keep all valid citations from the original.

2) Fix the `case_type`

• If case_type is missing, empty, or incorrect, determine it from the caselaw content.
• Valid case types (must be exactly one of these):

motion
motion to change
costs
trial
sentencing
appeal

Guidelines for determining case type:

• motion → Involves a motion (e.g., summary judgment, motion to dismiss).
• costs → Concerns a costs decision or costs award.
• trial → Decision after a full trial on the merits.
• sentencing → Criminal sentencing decisions.
• appeal → Appeals from a lower court decision.

Use court level, context, content and jurisdiction to assist in determining the correct type.

5) Markdown and Formatting

• Fix any markdown formatting issues.
• Ensure all headings use proper markdown (#, ##, etc.) for logical sections.
• Preserve exact wording and structure from the caselaw except where fixing formatting or frontmatter.
• CRITICAL: Format the markdown with nice spacing between each section. Make it NICE.

6) Links

• Reproduce all links exactly as in the original HTML version:
• Link the same words or phrases to the same URLs.
• Remove all references to unless they are part of the official caselaw text.

7) Output Requirements

• Output the full corrected markdown with the correct yaml frontmatter followed by the full corrected md document.
• Everything else must remain 100% verbatim — only the yaml frontmatter and formatting/links may be changed according to these instructions.
• Make sure the markdown is nicely spaced, and has correct Headings (#, ##, etc.)

Example of HTML and Markdown so you can see how to prepare our markdown file from the html:

<div class="solexHlZone lbh-document" id="originalDocument">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00009461-0000</p>
<p>DATE: 20250603</p>
<p>SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO</p>
<p>RE: SAMUEL MIDDLETON, Plaintiff</p>
<p>AND:</p>
<p>MATTHEW SHAWN KEY and Michelene catherine key, Defendants</p>
<p>BEFORE: Firestone RSJ.</p>
<p>COUNSEL: Thomas L. W. Orendorff , for the Plaintiff</p>
<p>Ryan D. Truax and Marcus Rozsa, for the Defendants</p>
<p>HEARD: In Writing</p>
<p>ENDORSEMENT</p>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=1"><p data-viibes-parag="1" data-viibes-start="0">[ 1 ] The Defendants bring this motion for an order transferring this proceeding from Sudbury (Northeast Region) to the Toronto Region.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=2"><p data-viibes-end="0" data-viibes-parag="2" data-viibes-start="1">[ 2 ] The Plaintiff opposes the transfer motion. He also brings a cross-motion requesting that should a transfer be necessary, it should be to Gore Bay in the Northeast Judicial Region.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=3"><p data-viibes-end="1" data-viibes-parag="3" data-viibes-start="2">[ 3 ] The motion is brought pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure , R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”) and the procedures set forth in the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction amended February 1, 2024 (the “Practice Direction”). In accordance with the Practice Direction, I am to determine the Defendants’ request to transfer this proceeding from another judicial region to the Toronto Region.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=4"><p data-viibes-end="2" data-viibes-parag="4" data-viibes-start="3">[ 4 ] In determining whether a transfer is desirable in the interests of justice, the court is to consider the factors enumerated in subrule 13.01.02(b)</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=5"><p data-viibes-end="3" data-viibes-parag="5" data-viibes-start="4">[ 5 ] The factors set forth in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) are to be applied holistically. No one of the enumerated factors is more important than the other. These factors are to be examined together and balanced in order to determine whether a requested transfer is desirable in the interests of justice: Chatterson et al. v. M&amp;M Meat Shops , 2014 ONSC 1897 , 68 C.P.C. (7 th ) 135 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 22 , 34, and 35.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=6"><p data-viibes-end="4" data-viibes-parag="6" data-viibes-start="5">[ 6 ] Balancing the factors in Rule 13.1.02 (2)(b) is not a purely numerical or mathematical counting exercise : Bruce Power L.P. v. BNT Canada, L.P. , 2018 ONSC 5968 , at para. 16 .</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=7"><p data-viibes-end="5" data-viibes-parag="7" data-viibes-start="6">[ 7 ] If the Plaintiff’s choice of venue is reasonable and the Defendant challenges that venue, then a comparison of the two venues is required. The Defendant must establish that its proposed choice of venue is “significantly better” than the one chosen by the Plaintiff: Chatterson, at paras. 28-29.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=8"><p data-viibes-end="6" data-viibes-parag="8" data-viibes-start="7">[ 8 ] The subject collision took place in the City of Toronto. At that time the Plaintiff was a student at Tyndale University in Toronto and was employed at Starbucks. He attends university between September and April of each year. The Plaintiff is ordinarily resident in the Northeast Judicial Region.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=9"><p data-viibes-end="7" data-viibes-parag="9" data-viibes-start="8">[ 9 ] Following the collision, he was transported to the North York General Hospital and then St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto where he remained for a number of days. Upon discharge he sought treatment at the Manitoulin Health Centre.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=10"><p data-viibes-end="8" data-viibes-parag="10" data-viibes-start="9">[ 10 ] The Defendants reside in Aurora which is located the Central York Region and is part of the greater Toronto area. Neither the Defendants nor the Plaintiff reside in the City of Toronto.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=11"><p data-viibes-end="9" data-viibes-parag="11" data-viibes-start="10">[ 11 ] A number of the medical and other witness to be called at trial reside in or near the greater Toronto area. However, the record discloses that the majority of the witnesses to be called by the Plaintiff at trial are resident in the Northeast Region. This is where the post-acute care and treatment was received and is where the Plaintiff’s family doctor, treating orthopedic surgeon and psychological expert reside. It is also where the Plaintiff has worked in his chosen profession.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=12"><p data-viibes-end="10" data-viibes-parag="12" data-viibes-start="11">[ 12 ] On a holistic consideration of the factors enumerated in subrule 13.1.02(2) and the circumstances of the case, I find that the Plaintiff’s choice of venue was a reasonable one. I am not satisfied that the record establishes that the venue proposed by the Defendants is “significantly better” than the one chosen by the Plaintiff. It cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s choice is unreasonable. I therefore dismiss the Defendants motion for a transfer.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=13"><p data-viibes-end="11" data-viibes-parag="13" data-viibes-start="12">[ 13 ] Given this result, the cross motion is also dismissed. For clarification, a request to transfer or move a proceeding within a particular judicial region from one location to another is not a determination to be made by an RSJ in a different region.</p></div>
<div link="/en/#search/origin1=/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html&amp;linkedNoteup=&amp;section1=14"><p data-viibes-end="12" data-viibes-parag="14" data-viibes-start="13">[ 14 ] I encourage the parties to agree on the issue of costs. If they cannot agree, the Plaintiff is to provide his costs submissions of no more than 2 pages by June 11, 2025. The Defendants are to provide their costs submission of the same length by June 18, 2025. Any reply is to be delivered by June 23, 2025. These submissions are to be uploaded to Case Center and provided to my judicial assistant.</p></div>
<p>_______________________________</p>
<p>Released: June 3, 2025 Firestone RSJ.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

---
citation: "Samuel Middleton v. Key et al., 2025 ONSC 3292"
parties: "Samuel Middleton v. Matthew Shawn Key and Michelene Catherine Key"
party_moving: "Matthew Shawn Key and Michelene Catherine Key"
party_responding: "Samuel Middleton"
court: "Superior Court of Justice"
court_abbreviation: "ONSC"
jurisdiction: "Ontario"
case_type: "motion"
date_judgement: "2025-06-03"
date_heard: "2025-06-03"
applicant:
  - "Matthew Shawn Key"
  - "Michelene Catherine Key"
applicant_counsel:
  - "Ryan D. Truax"
  - "Marcus Rozsa"
respondent:
  - "Samuel Middleton"
respondent_counsel:
  - "Thomas L. W. Orendorff"
judge: "Firestone"
winning_degree_applicant: 5
winning_degree_respondent: 1
judge_bias_applicant: 0
judge_bias_respondent: 0
year: 2025
decision_number: 3292
file_number: "CV-20-00009461-0000"
source: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3292/2025onsc3292.html"
cited_cases:
  legislation:
    - title: "Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194"
      url: "https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194"
  case_law:
    - title: "Chatterson et al. v. M&M Meat Shops, 2014 ONSC 1897, paras. 22, 34, 35"
      url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2014/2014onsc1897/2014onsc1897.html"
    - title: "Bruce Power L.P. v. BNT Canada, L.P., 2018 ONSC 5968, para. 16"
      url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc5968/2018onsc5968.html"
summary: >
  The defendants brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from Sudbury (Northeast Region) to the Toronto Region. The plaintiff opposed the transfer and brought a cross-motion requesting that, if a transfer was necessary, it should be to Gore Bay in the Northeast Judicial Region. The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable. The defendants did not establish that their proposed venue was significantly better. Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.
interesting_citations_summary: >
  The decision provides a clear application of the holistic approach to venue transfer under Rule 13.1.02, emphasizing that no single factor is determinative and that the party seeking transfer must show their proposed venue is significantly better. The court also clarifies the limits of an RSJ’s authority regarding intra-regional transfers.
keywords:
  - Venue transfer
  - Rules of Civil Procedure
  - Ontario Superior Court
  - Chatterson v. M&M Meat Shops
  - Bruce Power v. BNT Canada
  - Judicial region
  - Civil procedure
  - Costs submissions
areas_of_law:
  - Civil Procedure
  - Civil Litigation
---

# Court File and Parties

**Court File No.:** CV-20-00009461-0000
**Date:** 2025-06-03
**Superior Court of Justice – Ontario**

**Re:** Samuel Middleton, Plaintiff
**And:** Matthew Shawn Key and Michelene Catherine Key, Defendants

**Before:** Firestone RSJ.

**Counsel:**
Thomas L. W. Orendorff, for the Plaintiff
Ryan D. Truax and Marcus Rozsa, for the Defendants

**Heard:** In Writing

---

# Endorsement

[1] The Defendants bring this motion for an order transferring this proceeding from Sudbury (Northeast Region) to the Toronto Region.

[2] The Plaintiff opposes the transfer motion. He also brings a cross-motion requesting that should a transfer be necessary, it should be to Gore Bay in the Northeast Judicial Region.

[3] The motion is brought pursuant to [Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194) (the “Rules”) and the procedures set forth in the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction amended February 1, 2024 (the “Practice Direction”). In accordance with the Practice Direction, I am to determine the Defendants’ request to transfer this proceeding from another judicial region to the Toronto Region.

[4] In determining whether a transfer is desirable in the interests of justice, the court is to consider the factors enumerated in subrule 13.01.02(b).

[5] The factors set forth in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) are to be applied holistically. No one of the enumerated factors is more important than the other. These factors are to be examined together and balanced in order to determine whether a requested transfer is desirable in the interests of justice: [Chatterson et al. v. M&M Meat Shops, 2014 ONSC 1897, 68 C.P.C. (7th) 135 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 22, 34, and 35](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2014/2014onsc1897/2014onsc1897.html).

[6] Balancing the factors in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) is not a purely numerical or mathematical counting exercise: [Bruce Power L.P. v. BNT Canada, L.P., 2018 ONSC 5968, at para. 16](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc5968/2018onsc5968.html).

[7] If the Plaintiff’s choice of venue is reasonable and the Defendant challenges that venue, then a comparison of the two venues is required. The Defendant must establish that its proposed choice of venue is “significantly better” than the one chosen by the Plaintiff: Chatterson, at paras. 28-29.

[8] The subject collision took place in the City of Toronto. At that time the Plaintiff was a student at Tyndale University in Toronto and was employed at Starbucks. He attends university between September and April of each year. The Plaintiff is ordinarily resident in the Northeast Judicial Region.

[9] Following the collision, he was transported to the North York General Hospital and then St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto where he remained for a number of days. Upon discharge he sought treatment at the Manitoulin Health Centre.

[10] The Defendants reside in Aurora which is located in the Central York Region and is part of the greater Toronto area. Neither the Defendants nor the Plaintiff reside in the City of Toronto.

[11] A number of the medical and other witnesses to be called at trial reside in or near the greater Toronto area. However, the record discloses that the majority of the witnesses to be called by the Plaintiff at trial are resident in the Northeast Region. This is where the post-acute care and treatment was received and is where the Plaintiff’s family doctor, treating orthopedic surgeon and psychological expert reside. It is also where the Plaintiff has worked in his chosen profession.

[12] On a holistic consideration of the factors enumerated in subrule 13.1.02(2) and the circumstances of the case, I find that the Plaintiff’s choice of venue was a reasonable one. I am not satisfied that the record establishes that the venue proposed by the Defendants is “significantly better” than the one chosen by the Plaintiff. It cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s choice is unreasonable. I therefore dismiss the Defendants' motion for a transfer.

[13] Given this result, the cross-motion is also dismissed. For clarification, a request to transfer or move a proceeding within a particular judicial region from one location to another is not a determination to be made by an RSJ in a different region.

[14] I encourage the parties to agree on the issue of costs. If they cannot agree, the Plaintiff is to provide his costs submissions of no more than 2 pages by June 11, 2025. The Defendants are to provide their costs submission of the same length by June 18, 2025. Any reply is to be delivered by June 23, 2025. These submissions are to be uploaded to Case Center and provided to my judicial assistant.

---

Released: June 3, 2025
Firestone RSJ.