Scott Venton

The court addresses the issue of forum shopping in civil proceedings, specifically the practice of commencing actions in judicial regions with no rational connection to the dispute.

The Royal Bank of Canada brought a collection action in Halton against defendants residing in Belleville.

The court finds that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was based solely on convenience to itself and its counsel, with no connection to Halton.

Relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure, case law, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the court directs the plaintiff to seek leave to transfer the action to the Central East Region, warning that forum shopping is no longer acceptable and places undue strain on judicial resources.

A casino operator sought summary judgment against an Ontario resident for unpaid gambling credit advanced through casino markers.

The defendant argued Ontario was not the appropriate forum and claimed he did not remember signing the credit documents due to intoxication.

The court held Ontario had jurisdiction because the defendant resided and held assets in Ontario and had attorned to the jurisdiction through his pleadings.

Applying Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the documentary evidence, dishonoured cheques, and post‑transaction communications acknowledging the debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding balance plus contractual interest.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing an oppression action against the respondent Lee.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there was evidence of conduct by Lee that could constitute oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, including his involvement in a share purchase agreement, the removal of the deceased as Chair, and threats regarding life insurance policies.

The court held that it was inappropriate to weigh this evidence on a summary judgment motion and set aside the dismissal.