Search by
The applicant sought interim orders to assist with the recovery of equipment under breached financing and guarantee agreements.
A consent order was granted requiring the respondents to disclose the equipment’s location and cooperate with its repossession.
The judge found the forum (London, Ontario) had no rational connection to the dispute and flagged the matter as improper forum shopping.
Despite granting the interim order, the court denied all costs related to the appearance as a sanction for forum shopping.
The decision emphasizes the judiciary’s growing concern over strategic venue selection without legitimate regional ties.
The application remains adjourned sine die and may return upon seven days' notice for further proceedings.
Facts and procedural background
Canadian Equipment Finance & Leasing Inc. commenced an application against 6777691 Canada Inc. and Sandeep Singh to recover equipment under breached financing and guarantee agreements. The applicant sought interim relief to facilitate repossession and location of the equipment. All parties agreed to an interim consent order which included terms requiring the respondents to deliver possession of the equipment, disclose its location, and grant access to any premises where it was stored.
When the matter came before the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, the application was one of the final matters on the motions court docket. Counsel for both parties, through the applicant’s representative, confirmed their consent to the proposed interim order. The court reviewed the materials and found the order appropriate, granting it accordingly and adjourning the remainder of the application sine die, returnable on seven days’ notice.
Court’s criticism of forum shopping
Despite granting the requested relief, Justice I.F. Leach issued a strong critique of the applicant’s choice to initiate the proceeding in London. The judge identified a complete lack of connection between the litigation and the venue. The applicant was based in Breslau (Waterloo region), while the corporate and individual respondents were located in Oakville and Brampton respectively. The equipment itself was located and stored in Oakville, and all relevant transactions appeared to have occurred within the Central West Region of Ontario.
The court concluded that the only connection to London was the applicant’s retention of local counsel, which did not justify venue selection. Justice Leach characterized this as “forum shopping,” aimed at obtaining strategic procedural advantages. He highlighted the increasing burden such cases place on London’s court docket and referenced several prior decisions, both his own and those of other judges, condemning similar practices.
Cost consequences and procedural directives
Although the parties had resolved the interim relief on consent, the judge exercised his discretion to deny the applicant any recovery of costs for the appearance. This cost ruling was framed as a clear expression of the court’s disapproval of the applicant’s conduct in selecting an inappropriate venue. Justice Leach further directed that a copy of his endorsement be shared with any future judge presiding over this matter for cost determination purposes, should the application proceed further.
Outcome
The application was adjourned sine die, subject to being brought back on seven days’ notice. The interim consent order remains in effect, allowing the applicant to recover the financed equipment. However, the court imposed a complete denial of costs as a procedural penalty for forum shopping, reinforcing judicial expectations that litigation should be brought in venues with a rational connection to the underlying dispute. No substantive winner was determined at this stage, as the parties consented to an interim order. However, the court granted the relief requested by the applicant—repossession assistance through an interim consent order—but simultaneously denied the applicant any costs due to improper forum shopping.
Download documents
Applicant
Respondent
Court
Superior Court of Justice - OntarioCase Number
CV-25-000002033-0000Practice Area
Corporate & commercial lawAmount
Not specified/UnspecifiedWinner
Trial Start Date