Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants sought to transfer the case from Sudbury (Northeast Region) to Toronto Region.

• Plaintiff opposed the transfer and argued that Gore Bay (also in Northeast) would be more appropriate if a change were necessary.

• The motion was governed by Rule 13.1.02 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and the Consolidated Civil Practice Direction.

• Court emphasized that venue changes require a holistic assessment of multiple factors, not a mechanical test.

• Defendants failed to prove that Toronto was significantly better than the plaintiff’s chosen venue.

• Both the defendants' transfer motion and plaintiff’s cross-motion were dismissed.

Background and context of the motion

The case involves a motion over proper venue—not the merits of the underlying civil action. The plaintiff, Samuel Middleton, initiated a civil proceeding in the Sudbury court (Northeast Judicial Region). The defendants, Matthew Shawn Key and Michelene Catherine Key, brought a motion requesting that the case be transferred to the Toronto Region, citing convenience and location of certain witnesses. The plaintiff objected to this transfer and brought a cross-motion proposing that, if a change was deemed necessary, the venue should instead be moved to Gore Bay, which is still within the Northeast Judicial Region.

Factors considered under Rule 13.1.02

The legal framework guiding the venue motion is Rule 13.1.02 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, supported by the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction. The court was required to take a holistic approach in weighing the relevant factors. These included:

• Where the parties and witnesses reside

• Where the cause of action arose

• Where the plaintiff received treatment and support

• Relative convenience and access to justice

The incident that gave rise to the litigation occurred in Toronto, where the plaintiff was temporarily living as a student and working part-time. Following the incident, he was hospitalized in Toronto, but received the majority of his ongoing medical care and post-acute treatment in the Northeast Region, where he resides and works.

The defendants reside in Aurora, located in the Central Region, not Toronto. Although some medical witnesses are based near Toronto, the plaintiff’s key witnesses—his family doctor, orthopedic specialist, and psychological expert—are in the Northeast Region.

Court’s decision and outcome

Justice Firestone ruled that the plaintiff’s original choice of venue (Sudbury) was reasonable, and the defendants had not demonstrated that transferring the proceeding to Toronto would be “significantly better” under the law. The court emphasized that none of the factors in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) should be treated as decisive on their own and reaffirmed the principle that convenience and fairness must be assessed collectively.

As a result, the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to Toronto was dismissed. The plaintiff’s cross-motion to move the case to Gore Bay (in the same judicial region) was also dismissed, as such intra-regional transfers fall outside the deciding judge’s authority.

Conclusion

The court upheld the plaintiff’s original choice of venue in Sudbury, reinforcing the legal standard that a change of venue must only be ordered when the proposed location is clearly superior in serving the interests of justice. The ruling highlights the importance of deference to the plaintiff’s selection and the need for defendants to meet a high threshold when seeking to override it.