Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-00000336-0000
Date: 2025-03-18
Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Between:
Business Development Bank of Canada, Plaintiff
and
Winston Ang, Defendant

Before: J.E. Mills
Counsel:

• Josef Finkel, for the Plaintiff
• Scott Turton, for the Defendant
  Heard: March 18, 2025, in person

Endorsement

[1] The plaintiff, Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”), commenced this debt collection action in Halton Region. The matter is before the Court today for a summary judgment motion.

[2] The materials disclose the defendant, Mr. Ang, lives in North York, an administrative district of Toronto. His company, Blueprint Properties Inc., was the principal debtor and has its registered head office in Toronto. Counsel for BDC practices in Toronto, and counsel for Mr. Ang in Richmond Hill. The debt in question was applied for online by Blueprint in Toronto, and Mr. Ang is alleged to have signed the Guarantee documents online in Toronto. The debt was advanced to Blueprint in Toronto. The demands were sent on behalf of BDC to Toronto area addresses.

[3] This matter has no logical connection to Halton Hills. When invited to identify the connection, counsel was unable to do so.

[4] In accordance with the decision of Firestone J. in The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. The Other End Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 85, this action should be transferred to the Toronto Region.

[5] Applying the factors of Rule 13.1.02(2) to the facts of this case, there is nothing to suggest that Halton Region is an appropriate venue to bring this action. Toronto is clearly the most convenient venue for the proper adjudication of the issues raised in this proceeding and the parties involved.

[6] I adopt the words of Firestone J. at para. 26 where he states:

More broadly, while plaintiffs are generally entitled at first instance to choose where they commence proceedings, their decisions must be informed and reasonable. They do not have “carte blanche” to choose a particular venue without first considering whether the proposed Judicial Region and location has a rational connection to the matters at issue in the proceeding. In making this determination, consideration should be given to the relevant factors enumerated under Rule 13.1.02(2). Forum shopping is never appropriate.

[7] The hope or expectation that an earlier hearing date may be obtained for a summary judgment motion or a trial, is nothing more than forum shopping. This practice must stop. It is unfair to the litigants who have properly brought their matters in the appropriate Judicial Region, and it creates improper strain on limited judicial resources.

[8] The plaintiff is directed to seek leave of the Regional Senior Judge of the Toronto Region to transfer this matter. The motion for summary judgment is adjourned sine die.

[9] The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant and his company in 2023, bearing Court File No. CV-23-1833. Default judgment was taken out against the corporate defendant, but personal service was never effected upon Mr. Ang. The plaintiff instead commenced this action against Mr. Ang for the same relief advanced in the 2023 action. That action is dismissed against Mr. Ang on a without costs and without prejudice basis. Order to go as signed by me.

[10] The costs of today are reserved to the hearing of the motion on its merits.

J.E. Mills
Date: March 18, 2025