2 total
The court dismissed the defendants' motion to transfer venue, finding the plaintiff's choice of venue reasonable.
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 court ordered the consolidation of a tort action and an accident benefits action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.
Intact Insurance Company moved to consolidate an accident benefits action with a tort action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiff opposed, arguing complexity and potential jury confusion due to different causation tests and legal theories (e.g., crumbling skull) between tort and accident benefits claims.
The court, applying Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and factors from *10148664 Ontario Limited*, found that the gateway criteria for consolidation were met.
Despite the complexities, the court concluded that consolidation was appropriate, noting that such claims are routinely consolidated.
The court ordered consolidation but directed a case conference to address procedural issues and frame jury questions, particularly on causation, to avoid a mistrial.
