The court says London court staff and judges have noticed the attempts to speed up proceedings
An Ontario court told Toronto-Dominion Bank that a legal proceeding it initiated in London, Ont., seemed to have “no connection with this judicial centre, or indeed this region,” noting the case was part of a broader phenomenon of banks increasingly filing collection proceedings in the jurisdiction.
The ruling last week was a response to a factum filed by the defendant, who accused TD of “brazen venue-shopping” to speed up court proceedings.
The court said the trend “is a growing concern that has been noted by court staff and numerous judges here in London,” adding, “It was only a matter of time before a responding litigant raised such venue issues.”
“Providing timely access to justice is an understandable concern across the province,” the court said. “However, potential ‘forum shopping’ raises other concerns about justice from a broader perspective.”
The court added that such conduct could result in “potential injustice caused to other litigants, whose matters have clear and obvious connections with Middlesex County, having their access to justice delayed and complicated by litigants from elsewhere choosing to impose an additional inappropriate burden on the limited resources of this judicial centre and/or region, when their matters properly should be dealt with elsewhere.”
The court ordered the parties to prepare for a summary judgment hearing but said there was no guarantee it would be held in London.
TD filed its statement of claim against film production company The Other End Inc. and its founder, Amir Endalah, in February, alleging they defaulted on loan and credit card payments. The defendants argued last week that the matter should proceed in Toronto instead of London since the case has “no discernible links with Middlesex County.”
TD’s counsel said she would inform the bank of the venue concerns but acknowledged that the bank has filed similar motions in London that are still pending, the court said. However, the lawyer also accused the defendants of pursuing “delay tactics” and argued that delaying hearing a summary judgment motion by TD would result in injustice, the court added.
Fred Wu, a sole practitioner who filed the factum accusing TD of venue-shopping, told Law Times on Wednesday, “We don’t go shopping around courthouses just because it might be faster.
“We follow the basic rules of how to choose our venue, which is where is our defendant located, where were the damages alleged to have been suffered, and we don’t just go picking the shortest lineup,” Wu says. “This isn’t a fast food restaurant. Otherwise, how does our justice system plan and allocate resources accordingly?”
The court noted in its ruling that its “already busy motions court dockets increasingly are seeing material-intensive and time-consuming motions for summary judgment and similar collection measures in relation to credit arrangements agreed upon elsewhere, (usually in the Greater Toronto Area).”
Wu says he understands banks are pursuing high volumes of debt enforcement litigation after the pandemic, “but at the same time, we don’t get to just shift the burden to smaller towns. We don’t get to push the Toronto caseload off to smaller judicial centers, as the judge called them.
“Those smaller courthouses will notice, and they will push back,” Wu added. “That’s what we saw here with the decision on Friday.”
Counsel for TD did not respond to a request for comment.
