Stephen E. Firestone

The defendant, Klick Inc. dba Klick Health, brought a motion to transfer a wrongful dismissal action from Hamilton (Central South Region) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Danielle Tasson, opposed the motion.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevant Practice Direction, emphasizing a holistic approach.

The court found that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was reasonable, particularly in light of her childcare needs and residence circumstances, and that the defendant had not established that Toronto was “significantly better.” The motion to transfer was dismissed.

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.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the removal of certain bike lanes in Toronto, arguing that the removal would unjustifiably infringe the section 7 Charter rights of cyclists by exposing them to a heightened risk of injury or death.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm was established, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the presumption that legislation serves the public interest.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The court granted a consent motion to transfer a collection action brought by The Toronto-Dominion Bank from London (Middlesex) to Toronto.

The decision reviews the legal principles for change of venue under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for a rational connection between the chosen venue and the subject matter of the proceeding.

The court found that all relevant events, parties, and interests were connected to Toronto, and that London had no rational connection to the dispute.

The decision also addresses the broader issue of forum shopping and its impact on judicial resources.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto, which the plaintiffs had opposed.

The court applied principles from Schreiber v. Mulroney and Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario, considering Rule 57 factors and proportionality.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants partial indemnity costs of $2,980.00.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and principles from *Schreiber v. Mulroney* and *Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario*, ordered the plaintiffs to pay partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and determining that Toronto was a substantially better venue, given that the project, contractual agreement, and all events giving rise to the claim were located in Toronto, as were the parties and their counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, arguing that Toronto was the more appropriate venue.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and that Toronto was a substantially better venue, based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors, including the location of the project, the events giving rise to the claim, and the parties' residences.

The plaintiff sought to schedule a summary judgment motion in a simplified procedure action concerning an unpaid loan.

The court, following a case conference, exercised its discretion to decline scheduling the motion, emphasizing that summary judgment remains the exception, not the rule, and finding no demonstrable increase in efficiency or cost savings by scheduling such a motion within the existing streamlined simplified procedure framework.

The defendants, Turgut Askar and Beck Taxi Ltd., brought a motion to change the trial venue from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff, Leela Rampersad, opposed the motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that Toronto was a "substantially better" venue given the location of the motor vehicle accident, the residences of the parties and most potential witnesses, and the plaintiff's connections to Toronto for employment and medical treatment.

The only connection to Barrie was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a full and final settlement of his statutory accident benefits claim, pursuant to Rule 7.08(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court approved the proposed settlement of $450,000, which included a structured component, finding it to be in the best interests of the applicant.

The decision also provided important clarification on the practice of pre-funding structured settlements in escrow, affirming that this process is appropriate and necessary to secure precise payment schedules and does not usurp the court's jurisdiction, as funds remain subject to withdrawal or amendment until final approval.

The Appellant, Nodebe Agbapu, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication.

The Respondent, Dr. Tariq Munshi, brought a motion for the appointment of amicus curiae to assist the court, as the self-represented Appellant had not taken steps to perfect the appeal.

The court granted the motion, appointing Jennifer Danch as amicus curiae, finding it appropriate and necessary in the interest of justice to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

This endorsement arises from an appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

Respondent's counsel requested the appointment of amicus curiae, which the appellant opposed.

The Civil Practice Court Judge directed that this request be brought by way of motion.

The endorsement confirms this direction, ordering the motion to be brought in writing before the Regional Senior Justice.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to transfer a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision from Brampton to Toronto.

The collision occurred in Toronto, the plaintiff resides and sustained damages in Toronto, and two other related actions were already commenced in Toronto.

Applying the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the plaintiff met the onus of demonstrating that a transfer was in the interest of justice.

The motion was granted.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to or refuse treatment with antipsychotic medication.

Due to the appellant's failure to perfect the appeal, the respondent requested the appointment of an amicus curiae.

The court granted the request and appointed an amicus curiae pursuant to Rule 13.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The defendant, Teva Canada Limited, brought an unopposed motion to transfer a wrongful termination action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as where the events giving rise to the claim occurred, where damages were sustained, and the convenience of parties and witnesses.

Finding no connection to Hamilton other than the plaintiff's counsel, and a substantial connection to Toronto (defendant's head office, place of work, and termination), the court granted the transfer, reserving costs to the trial judge.

The applicant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of managing his property under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant failed to comply with the timetable for perfecting the appeal, leading the respondent to request that the appeal hearing be vacated and amicus curiae appointed.

The court granted the respondent's requests, vacating the scheduled hearing and directing the appointment of amicus curiae to assist the court in the interests of justice, pending an investigation into the applicant's legal aid status.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion to transfer an action from the East Region (Ottawa) to the Toronto Region.

The Defendant, as the successful moving party, sought costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and bill of costs, considering factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of proportionality under Rule 1:04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the time spent by the moving party's counsel, particularly on cross-examinations deemed unnecessary, was not proportional to the straightforward nature of the transfer motion.

The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant partial indemnity costs in the all-inclusive amount of $1,990.00, significantly less than the $8,107.50 sought.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action and all related enforcement proceedings from the East Region (Ottawa) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff had previously obtained default summary judgment in Ottawa for credit card debt and was seeking to enforce a writ of seizure and sale against the defendant's home in Toronto.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure holistically.

Finding that the defendant lived in Toronto, the subject property was in Toronto, and both parties had Toronto counsel, the court concluded that Toronto was a significantly better venue for the remaining post-judgment steps.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The respondent doctor brought a motion to appoint amicus curiae in an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the appellant's incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The self-represented appellant had taken no steps to perfect the appeal.

The court found the appointment necessary in the interests of justice to assist the court and ensure the appeal proceeds.

The court directed Legal Aid Ontario to investigate the appellant's status and ordered the appointment of amicus curiae if a certificate could not be issued expeditiously.