The court condemned delays caused by filing cases in regions without connection to the matter
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice transferred Toronto Dominion Bank's debt collection case from London to Toronto and emphasized that venue choices must be rationally related to the issues at hand.
The case involved alleged debts owed by the defendants, a film and production company and its principal, to the plaintiff, TD. The court criticized the bank's misuse of judicial resources through forum shopping.
The defendants motioned to transfer the proceeding under rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Toronto was the appropriate venue. All parties later consented to the transfer. The court determined the motion in writing, following procedures outlined in the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction.
The court noted that the case had no connection to London. The company and its principal operate from Toronto, and TD maintains its head office in Toronto. All dealings with the bank took place there.
The court considered several factors in deciding whether to order a venue change, including where the events leading to the claim took place, where damages were sustained, and the parties' convenience. The analysis confirmed that Toronto was the proper location for the case.
In September 2024, TD's motion for summary judgment came before the court, which raised concerns about the motion's prematurity and the bank's choice of London as the venue for the proceeding. The court criticized the growing practice of initiating cases in venues without connection to the matter, describing it as an inappropriate use of judicial resources. In its January decision, the Superior Court reiterated this concern, emphasizing the strain such practices place on courts and the delays caused to other litigants with legitimate connections to those regions. While virtual hearings have become more common, the court clarified that their availability does not justify improper venue selection.
In this instance, the defendants' motion for a venue change reflected broader concerns about ensuring fairness in the judicial process. The court reaffirmed that plaintiffs must choose venues thoughtfully, considering the factors enumerated in the rules, rather than seeking perceived advantages in unrelated regions. Ultimately, the court transferred the proceeding to Toronto.
