Yousef Jabbour

The defendant MPW Industrial Services Inc. brought a motion to dismiss or stay a personal injury action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not a convenient forum.

The plaintiff, a truck driver, was injured in Ohio when cargo negligently loaded in Ontario dislodged.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on a real and substantial connection, as two other defendants were domiciled in Ontario and the alleged tortious acts (negligent loading) occurred in Ontario.

The court also determined that Ohio was not clearly a more appropriate forum, considering factors such as comparative convenience, applicable law, multiplicity of proceedings, enforcement, and fairness and efficiency.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Brampton) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Magdalene Coppin, opposed the transfer.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the incident occurred in Toronto, the plaintiff resided and received treatment in Toronto, and examinations for discovery took place in Toronto.

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

The court determined that the TTC met its onus to demonstrate that the interests of justice required the transfer to Toronto, considering a holistic application of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to post security for costs.

The plaintiff, a citizen of India who had returned there after his permanent resident card expired, argued that a Legal Protection Certificate and Indemnity Agreement he purchased constituted sufficient security.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision on a matter of principle and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal for delay in a motor vehicle accident action.

Applying the contextual approach to the Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. criteria, the court considered the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found uncertainty regarding whether the dismissal order had ever come to the attention of the plaintiffs while they were unrepresented, and accepted that the plaintiffs intended to pursue the litigation.

The court also concluded that the presumption of prejudice from delay had been rebutted and that the defendants failed to establish actual prejudice.

In the interests of justice and adjudication on the merits, the dismissal was set aside.