COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00000025-0000 (Brockville) CV-24-00684146-0000 (Toronto)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, ONTARIO
RE: DAVID GRANT ISAAC, Plaintiff
and
GERALD ANDREW SANDERS, TREA BLYTHE TUCK, ESTATE TRUSTEE WITHOUT A WILL FOR HAROLD JAMES SAUNDERS ESTATE OF HAROLD JAMES SAUNDERS, LISA CYR-AULD, REMAX HALLMARK REALTY INC./LTD., PERSONS UNKNOWN, Defendants
BEFORE: C. MacLeod RSJ
APPEARING: Michael D. Swindley, for the Defendants Cyr-Auld & ReMax Hallmark (Moving Parties)
David Isaac, in person
HEARD: June 6, 2024 – by videoconference
DECISION AND REASONS
1This is a Motion to transfer this action, which was commenced in Toronto, to Brockville, in the East Region. Pursuant to the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction such motions are ordinarily to be dealt with by the Regional Senior Judge or delegate in writing. In this case, however, it was originally placed on a motion list in Brockville and subsequently Mr. Isaac asked for an oral hearing.
2On June 6, 2024, the motion was argued by videoconference.
BACKGROUND
3The action relates to a failed real estate deal in which the Plaintiff was to purchase residential property in the City of Brockville. The reasons why the transaction did not close are in dispute but there were complications due to the fact that it was an estate sale. There were also issues that arose on the attempted closing because of issues with Terraview.
4The Plaintiff resides in Mississauga. The property is in Brockville. Most of the Defendants are in Brockville. There is no connection whatsoever between the events at the centre of the litigation and the City of Toronto.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
5I have carefully considered the material, jurisprudence and argument put forward by Mr. Isaac. I agree he was within his rights to commence the action in Toronto because Rule 13.1.01 (2) permits a plaintiff to commence an action such as this anywhere in Ontario. The Rule also provides that any party may seek a change in the location of the proceeding and lists factors to be considered.
6While it may be premature to consider convenience to witnesses at a time when the action has not been set down for trial and no one has committed to witness lists, almost all of the other listed factors support a transfer. None of the factors favour Toronto.
7Much of the time during the Motion was spent arguing about Mr. Isaac’s status as a “former lawyer” or “disbarred lawyer” but this has nothing to do with the issues before the Court. There is a paragraph in the defence which states that “incidentally, the plaintiff is a former lawyer” and his “law licence was revoked …for … conduct unbecoming”. The Defendant concedes this is an embarrassing and unnecessary paragraph. He undertakes to amend the pleading to delete paragraph 26 and has leave to do so.
8There remains a pleading that when Mr. Isaac terminated the retainer of his real estate lawyer and advised that he would represent himself, he was unable to get a Terraview licence because he was not insured for real estate with LawPro but that is a different issue. It is not an issue that is relevant to the issue of transfer.
9In conclusion, I am granting an Order for the transfer of this proceeding from Toronto to Brockville. When the court file is transferred, the Registrar should assign the file number that has already been used for this Motion.
10As noted above, with a few exceptions such as mortgage actions or lien actions, a plaintiff is entitled to commence an action in any county in Ontario. Transfer to another county or to another region requires a motion and as such costs will not normally be awarded if the motion is uncontested. Here, the Motion was contested, and the Plaintiff insisted on an oral hearing. That hearing took more than two hours. A modest costs award is appropriate in those circumstances.
11Having regard as well to the undertaking to amend the defence, I fix the costs at $1,000 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the moving Defendants. The other Defendants took no position on the Motion and did not appear, so they are not entitled to costs.
Justice C. MacLeod
Date: June 19, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00000025-0000 (Brockville) CV-24-00684146-0000 (Toronto)
DATE: 2024 06 19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, ONTARIO
RE: DAVID GRANT ISAAC, Plaintiff
-and-
GERALD ANDREW SANDERS, TREA BLYTHE TUCK, ESTATE TRUSTEE WITHOUT A WILL FOR HAROLD JAMES SAUNDERS ESTATE OF HAROLD JAMES SAUNDERS, LISA CYR-AULD, REMAX HALLMARK REALTY INC./LTD., PERSONS UNKNOWN, Defendants
BEFORE: Regional Senior Justice Calum MacLeod
COUNSEL: Michael D. Swindley, for the Defendants Cyr-Auld & ReMax Hallmark (Moving Parties)
David Isaac, in person
decision and reasons
Regional Senior Justice C. MacLeod
Released: June 19, 2024