Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-4662-0000

DATE: 2021-01-13

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: CEARA DOONER, Plaintiff

AND:

FERDYNAND SZKLANKO AND SUMMIT CREDIT CORPORATION AND TRAIN TRAILER RENTALS LTD AND MOUHAB SABER, Defendants

BEFORE: Regional Senior Justice Stephen E. Firestone

COUNSEL: Arvin Gupta for the Plaintiff

Patrick J. Monaghan for the Defendants Ferdynand Szklanko, Summit Credit Corporation and Train Trailer Rentals LTD.

Andrew K. Lee for the Defendant Mouhab Saber

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] The Plaintiff Ceara Dooner ("Dooner") brings this motion for an order transferring this action from the Central West Region(Brampton) to the Toronto Region pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O 1990,Reg 194 (the"Rules").

[2] The Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction at part III (B) effective July 1, 2014 ("Practice Direction") deals with the transfer of a civil proceeding in the Central East, Central West, Central South and Toronto Regions under Rule 13.1.02. Pursuant to the Practice Direction, motions to transfer should be brought in writing at the court location to which the moving party seeks the proceeding transferred. These motions are to be heard by the Regional Senior Judge, or his or her designate.

[3] Rule 46.01of the Rules provides that the trial of an action shall be held in the county where the proceeding was commenced or to which it has been transferred under Rule 13.01.02 unless the court orders otherwise. Rule 13.1.02 and the Practice Direction outline how a change of venue motion should proceed. Subsection (2) of Rule 13.0.02 states:

"...[t]he court may, on any party's motion, make an order to transfer the proceeding to a county other than the one where it was commenced, if the court is satisfied,

(a) that it is likely that a fair hearing cannot be held in the county where the proceeding was commenced; or

(b) that a transfer is desirable in the interest of justice, having regard to,

(i) where a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim incurred,

(ii) where a substantial part of the damages were sustained,

(iii) where the subject-matter of the proceeding is or was located,

(iv) any local community's interest in the subject matter of the proceeding,

(v) the convenience of the parties, the witnesses, and the court,

(vi) whether there are counterclaims, crossclaims, or third subsequent party claims,

(vii) any advantages or disadvantages of a particular place with respect to securing the just, most expeditious at least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits.

(viii) whether judges and court facilities are available at the other county, and

(ix) any other relevant matter.

[4] A plaintiff has a prima facie right to select a venue for an action. The onus is on the moving party to show that it is "in the interest of justice" to transfer the action having regard to the factors outlined in Rule 13.1.02 (2)(b). The court is to consider a "holistic" application of the factors outlined in the rule to the specific facts: see Chatterson v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd., 2014 ONSC 1897 (Div. Ct.) at para. 22; Hallman v. Pure Spousal Trust (Trustee of), 2009 CanLII 51192 (ON SC), 80 C.P.C. (6th) 139 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para 28.When the plaintiff's choice of jurisdiction is challenged by a defendant and there is no connection whatsoever to the issuing jurisdiction, barring any unusual circumstance, the proceeding must be transferred to the other jurisdiction bearing in mind the factors in Rule 13.1.02(2): Ferrari v. Polytainers Inc; 2014 ONSC 5938, 2014 CarswellOnt 14140 at para. 7.

[5] I have applied the factors set out in Rule 13.1.02 (2) to the factual matrix of this case. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has met the requisite onus and has demonstrated that the interest of justice requires that this action be transferred from Brampton to Toronto.

[6] This action arises following a motor vehicle collision which occurred in the City of Toronto. Two other actions have been commenced in the Toronto Region arising from the same collision. There are likely overlapping issues common to all three collisions.

[7] The plaintiff resides in the City of Toronto. The alleged damages were sustained in the City of Toronto.

[8] I order that this action be transferred from the Central West Region (Brampton) to the Toronto Region. The parties are at liberty to bring a motion for trial together or one after the other in the normal course.

[9] Order to issue and enter in accordance with the original signed by me today. Given this motion was either on consent or unopposed I make no order as to costs.

Regional Senior Justice Firestone

Date: January 13, 2021