Stephen E. Firestone

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.

The defendant Ryder Truck Rental Canada Ltd. brought a motion in writing to lift a stay of proceedings and dismiss the action in its entirety without costs.

The plaintiffs had resolved their claim with the co-defendant insurer and elected not to proceed against the remaining defendants.

The court found that a previous noting in default of the individual defendant while the stay was in place was invalid, but that noting in default was not required to dismiss the action.

The court lifted the stay for the sole purpose of dismissing the action without costs on consent of the participating parties.

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.

The defendant Ryder Truck Rental requested an order lifting a previously imposed stay of proceedings and dismissing the action on consent.

The court noted that the defendant Minassian had been noted in default after the stay order was issued, and that a noting in default obtained during a stay should not be given effect.

The court directed that any request to lift the stay and dismiss the action must be made by way of a formal motion in writing on notice to all parties.

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

The respondent requested the appointment of amicus curiae because the appellant had not taken steps to perfect the appeal.

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

The self-represented plaintiff requested that the action be included in the Civil Case Management Pilot-One Judge Model.

The application was denied because the pilot project requires the consent of all parties, and the defendants confirmed they did not consent.

The court noted the parties could request case management under Rule 77 following the disposition of the defendants' upcoming motions to strike.

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the TTC failed to establish that the proposed Toronto venue was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen Hamilton venue, or that the transfer was desirable in the interest of justice, especially given the late stage of the proceedings and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Toronto pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

Noting that a summary judgment motion was already scheduled to be heard in Hamilton on consent, the court found the transfer motion premature.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renew it following the determination of the pending summary judgment motion.

This endorsement, issued by the Case Management Judge, addresses a request for leave by Aviva General Insurance Company to bring a motion to amend a prior order to add Aviva as a statutory third party in various actions arising from a specific incident.

The court directs that any such request for leave must be made by way of a motion in writing, on notice to all necessary parties, in accordance with Rule 37.12.1(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The endorsement also includes directions for distributing the order and notifying an incarcerated defendant.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Milton) to the Toronto Region.

The underlying action involved a commercial lease dispute regarding premises located in Toronto.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the proceeding had no rational connection to the Central West Region, the court granted the motion and ordered the action transferred to Toronto.

The plaintiff requested the appointment of a case management judge for her action.

The court, acting as Civil Team Lead, deemed this request premature because one of the defendants had already brought a motion to transfer the action from the Toronto Region to the Northwest Region (Kenora).

The endorsement clarified that the plaintiff could renew her request if the transfer motion was dismissed.

It also noted that opposed requests for case management must be brought by way of motion, in accordance with the Consolidated Practice Direction for Civil Actions in the Toronto Region.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to transfer an action from Oshawa to Toronto, either to be tried together with an existing Toronto action or as a standalone transfer.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and delivered notice of intent to make oral argument.

The court, noting that the motion sought additional relief beyond a simple transfer and that the plaintiff had requested an oral hearing under Rule 37.12.1(5)(d), ordered that the defendant's motion be set down for an oral hearing before a judge in the Toronto Region.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Superior Court in Oshawa (Central East Region) to the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto (Toronto Region), which the plaintiff opposed.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found no rational connection to Oshawa.

Considering the location of the parties, counsel, events giving rise to the claim, and witnesses, the court determined that Toronto was a substantially better venue and that the interest of justice required the transfer due to inconvenience and additional costs if the action remained in Oshawa.

The motion to transfer was granted, and costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs requested that their action and several related actions be assigned for case management pursuant to Rule 77.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The request was heard by the Civil Team Leader-Toronto Region, to whom the Regional Senior Judge had delegated this responsibility.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 77.05(4) and found that the actions should be assigned for case management.

Justice W.S. Chalmers was assigned as the case management judge for the consolidated actions.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to transfer the action from Newmarket to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the holistic factors for venue transfer and found that the interest of justice required the transfer.

The transfer was granted primarily because there were common issues with a related Toronto action, and summary judgment motions for all related proceedings had already been ordered to be heard together in Toronto.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision from Barrie to Toronto.

The collision occurred in Toronto, and all parties, counsel, and potential witnesses, including medical professionals, were located in or near Toronto.

The plaintiff did not respond to the motion.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that Toronto was a substantially better venue, as there was no connection between the action and Barrie.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The Statutory Third Party sought costs thrown away after a trial was adjourned due to the late delivery of expert reports.

The court found that both parties failed to agree to a schedule for expert reports as required by Rule 53.03(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the plaintiff's late delivery of reports ultimately necessitated the adjournment.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,900 in costs thrown away to the Statutory Third Party.