Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought interim court orders to locate and repossess a vehicle under a conditional sales agreement due to alleged defaults.

• The respondents appeared without counsel and requested an adjournment to obtain legal representation.

• The court granted the adjournment but raised serious concerns about the applicant’s repeated venue selection practices in unrelated jurisdictions.

• Justice Leach criticized the applicant’s filing of proceedings in London despite no factual connection to the venue.

• The practice was classified as improper forum shopping, meriting a procedural sanction.

• Although the application was not decided on the merits, the court denied the applicant any costs for the appearance.

Facts and procedural background

BMW Group Financial Services Canada, acting as assignee under a conditional sales agreement, initiated proceedings against Iknight Entertainment Inc. and Anton Jesly, seeking various interim orders to assist with the location and repossession of a financed vehicle. The respondents had allegedly defaulted on their obligations under the agreement, prompting the application. The hearing took place on August 1, 2025, before Justice I.F. Leach of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London.

Anton Jesly appeared self-represented and was granted leave to speak on behalf of both himself and the corporate respondent for the day’s proceedings. He advised the court that he was currently outside the country, expected to return shortly, and that both respondents were in the process of retaining legal counsel. On that basis, the respondents requested an adjournment of the matter to August 22, 2025.

Court’s procedural ruling and critique of venue selection

The applicant did not oppose the request, given that it was the first adjournment sought. The court granted the adjournment and made it peremptory on the respondents. However, Justice Leach used the opportunity to deliver a strong statement against the applicant’s conduct in bringing the matter before the London court.

Despite granting the adjournment, the judge scrutinized the applicant’s pattern of initiating similar applications in London, a venue that had no rational connection to the parties or the subject matter. In this case, the conditional sales agreement involved parties located in Guelph and Woodbridge, the vehicle was believed to be in Guelph, and the applicant itself operated from Richmond Hill. The only link to London was the applicant’s chosen legal counsel, which Justice Leach held was insufficient to establish venue appropriateness.

Citing growing judicial concern over forum shopping, the court referenced prior decisions in which similar conduct was condemned, including cases involving banks and other lenders who initiated proceedings in venues disconnected from the dispute in order to obtain strategic or logistical advantages. Justice Leach reaffirmed that convenience to counsel is not a valid basis for venue selection, especially where it imposes on an already burdened court docket and diverts resources from cases with legitimate regional ties.

Outcome

While the application remains pending and no ruling was made on its substantive merits, the court imposed an immediate procedural sanction. Justice Leach exercised his discretion to deny the applicant any costs for the day’s appearance due to the inappropriate venue selection. The endorsement directed that a copy of the decision be provided to any judge presiding over future proceedings in the matter, particularly for cost considerations.

The matter was adjourned to August 22, 2025. No winner was declared, and the court has yet to decide on the relief sought. However, the applicant’s forum shopping practice was clearly censured, setting the stage for stricter scrutiny of similar conduct going forward. No substantive winner was determined at this stage.