2 total
Venue transferred on court's own initiative to combat improper forum shopping in debt collection action.
The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment in London regarding credit card debt.
On his own initiative, the judge directed a case management conference to consider whether the proceeding should be transferred, noting the matter had no rational connection to Middlesex County.
Applying the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the plaintiff engaged in improper forum shopping by commencing the action in London solely because its counsel was located there.
The court exercised its new jurisdiction under Rule 13.1.02(4) to transfer the proceeding to Brampton, where the underlying contract was formed and the defendant formerly resided.
Motions for an extension of time to appeal and a stay of an approval and vesting order dismissed.
The moving parties, whose property was placed in receivership, sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an approval and vesting order, as well as a stay of that order pending appeal.
The motion judge dismissed the extension request, finding the moving parties failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay, the delay prejudiced the receiver, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.
Consequently, the motion for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed, as there was no active appeal before the court and the balance of convenience favored the receiver.
