Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and address inappropriate venue even without a party’s motion.
• Allegations of judicial bias and apprehension of unfairness in the Central West Region, and the court’s rejection of these as unfounded.
• Plaintiffs’ attempt to justify their choice of Hamilton (Central South) as venue despite no factual, geographic, or legal connection to that jurisdiction.
• Application of Rule 13.1.02(2) factors and the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction to determine the appropriate regional venue.
• Concern over forum shopping and its impact on judicial resources and access to justice in a region with limited judicial complement.
• Direction that a motion be brought to the Regional Senior Judge in Central West to determine transfer, with the Hamilton proceeding stayed in the interim.

Facts of the case

The proceeding of Smiley et al. v. Valour Group Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 6736, arises from a civil dispute in which the plaintiffs, William John Smiley and Donna-Marie Smiley, seek recovery of investment funds, loans, and related damages from a series of corporate and individual defendants. The defendants include Valour Group Inc., Verico Pro Funds Mortgages Inc. operating as Pro Funds Mortgages, Lavender Lake Inc., Valour Fairview GO Holdings Inc., Richard Hall, Carmen Campagnaro, and Valour Partners Enterprise Fund LP. The plaintiffs’ claim concerns investments and lending transactions, but the endorsement at issue deals only with procedural and venue questions, not with the substantive merits of those financial dealings. No policy wording or contractual clauses are reproduced or analyzed in the decision, and there is no discussion of any insurance policy terms or other written policy clauses; the focus is entirely on forum, jurisdiction, and the efficient administration of justice.

The action was commenced in Hamilton, which is in the Central South Region of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. However, as the Local Administrative Judge for Hamilton, Bordin J. noted that the action appeared to have no connection to Hamilton. The parties themselves acknowledge that none of the parties, properties, underlying events, or legal representatives are connected to Hamilton; instead, their connections lie in the Central West Region and the Toronto Region. The underlying case is part of a broader context of lending and investment disputes in which the moving party defendants are reportedly defending more than fifty similar debt-collection actions in Central West, reinforcing the strong factual ties to that region rather than to Hamilton.

Procedural background and venue dispute

The matter comes before Bordin J. not on the merits of the investment and loan claim, but in chambers in his capacity as Local Administrative Judge. A rule 21 motion brought by the defendants is pending on the Hamilton long motion list, awaiting the availability of a judge. In a previous endorsement dated 14 November 2025, the court raised a concern sua sponte that the matter had no rational connection to Hamilton and invited written submissions from the parties as to why the action should remain there and why a motion should not instead be brought before the Regional Senior Judge (RSJ) in Central West for transfer of the action, in accordance with the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction.

In their written submissions, neither party disputes that the proceeding has no factual or geographic nexus to Hamilton. The plaintiffs, however, argue that they were entitled to select Central South Region as the venue under Rule 13.1.01(2). They maintain that their choice was a legitimate and thoughtful exercise of their procedural rights, aimed at ensuring neutrality and fairness. The plaintiffs also contend that there is no statute or rule requiring the proceeding to be commenced in Central West, and they point out that the defendants did not themselves bring a motion to challenge jurisdiction or venue.

In addition, the plaintiffs raise concerns about perceived fairness in Central West. They point to the defendants’ significant presence and reputation in Burlington and the broader Central West community, and to the defendants’ involvement in numerous similar debt-collection actions in that region. They suggest that this combination creates a risk of potential judicial bias or at least a reasonable apprehension of unfairness if the matter were to proceed in Central West. The moving party defendants, for their part, dispute the plaintiffs’ characterization and deny that litigating in Central West would give them any improper advantage or create bias; they submit that there is no evidence substantiating any such concern and take no position on whether the action should remain in Hamilton or be formally transferred, leaving that question to the court and the applicable practice directions.

Court’s analysis on jurisdiction and venue

Bordin J. begins by addressing the court’s power to control its own process, relying on recent decisions such as BFT Mortgage Services Inc. v. Getz, 2025 ONSC 2908, and RBC v. Gill, 2025 ONSC 3095. In those cases, Kurz J. reviewed legal authorities and concluded that, subject to an explicit rule, the Ontario Superior Court has inherent jurisdiction to regulate its process and to determine that a proceeding has been brought in an inappropriate jurisdiction, even if no party has formally raised the issue by motion. This is so notwithstanding that Rule 13.1.02(2), when read together with Rule 13.1.02(1), could suggest at first glance that transfers occur only when a party brings a motion. Bordin J. expressly agrees with Kurz J.’s conclusion, affirming that the court can act on its own initiative when the venue is plainly inappropriate.

The court then considers the plaintiffs’ allegations of bias and their reliance on Rule 13.1.02(2)(a). That provision allows a court, on any party’s motion, to transfer a proceeding to a different county where it is likely that a fair hearing cannot be held in the county of commencement. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ long-standing presence in Central West and their involvement in many similar actions create a risk of partiality. Bordin J. rejects these allegations categorically, observing that courts routinely hear cases involving notorious or frequently appearing litigants. The mere fact that one party is prominent or litigious in a region does not, in itself, establish bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court holds that the plaintiffs’ assertions fall far short of the applicable threshold and that there is no basis to conclude that a fair hearing cannot be had in Central West or elsewhere.

Turning to the plaintiffs’ claimed entitlement to choose Hamilton, Bordin J. notes that while Rule 13.1.01(2) does not prescribe a single mandatory venue for a case of this type and there is no statute requiring commencement in Central West, a plaintiff’s initial choice of forum is not unlimited. The court adopts and applies the reasoning of RSJ Firestone in The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. The Other End Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 85, where a motion was brought to transfer an action from London to Toronto. In that decision, RSJ Firestone explained that although plaintiffs generally have a first-instance right to choose venue, that choice must be “informed and reasonable” and must have a rational connection to the matters at issue, taking into account the factors listed in Rule 13.1.02(2). Plaintiffs do not have “carte blanche” to select any venue irrespective of connection; forum shopping is never appropriate, and delay or the availability of virtual hearings are not, by themselves, legitimate reasons to select a particular region.

Bordin J. adopts these principles and expresses concern, shared by other judges, about the systemic effects of forum shopping. Commencing cases in judicial regions with no genuine connection to the dispute imposes an increased burden on local judicial resources and can significantly delay access to justice for other litigants whose matters properly belong in that region. At the time of the endorsement, Hamilton is short two of its seven generalist judges (excluding the Regional Senior Judge), and there are twenty motions and applications waiting on the long motion list, with some matters pending since September. Against this backdrop, the court emphasizes that allowing out-of-region cases with no rational connection to Hamilton to occupy limited hearing slots unfairly impacts parties with legitimate ties to the region and undermines the efficient functioning of the court.

Applying Rule 13.1.02(2) and the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction, the court reviews the relevant factors: the location of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim; where damages were sustained; the location of the subject-matter of the proceeding; local community interest; and the convenience of parties, witnesses, and the court. Based on the pleadings and the parties’ submissions, Bordin J. finds that none of these factors favour Hamilton. The matter has no rational connection to Hamilton, and the plaintiffs rely essentially on a bare assertion of a procedural right to pick any venue they wish. The court expressly rejects the contention that choosing Hamilton represents a legitimate, thoughtful exercise of their procedural rights. Instead, the choice is seen as a form of forum shopping that improperly burdens a region already under strain, contrary to the principles articulated in Other End and the broader provincial practice directions.

The court further notes that, under the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction, it is ultimately the RSJ of the region to which a proceeding is proposed to be transferred who determines whether the transfer should occur. Thus, while the Local Administrative Judge in Hamilton can identify that the matter does not belong there and can protect Hamilton’s lists and resources in the interim, the formal transfer decision lies with the RSJ in the receiving region, here the Central West Region.

Outcome and implications

In disposition, Bordin J. orders that the plaintiffs must bring a motion in writing to the Regional Senior Judge in Central West in accordance with the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Directions. Until the RSJ in Central West has determined whether the proceeding should be transferred to that region, the Hamilton action is stayed. The plaintiffs are specifically directed to bring the present decision to the attention of the Regional Senior Justice who will hear the transfer motion. As a result, the case cannot proceed on its merits in Hamilton, and the plaintiffs’ attempt to anchor the dispute in that region fails. The court’s reasons strongly indicate that Hamilton is an inappropriate venue given the absence of any factual, geographic, or community connection.

This endorsement therefore does not resolve the underlying investment and loan dispute between the parties, nor does it address liability, damages, or any policy or contract clauses. Its significance lies instead in its affirmation of the Superior Court’s inherent jurisdiction to police improper venue choices, its rejection of unsupported allegations of judicial bias based on a party’s regional prominence or litigation history, and its clear stance against forum shopping that strains judicial resources and delays justice for properly situated litigants. In practical terms, the outcome favours the defendants’ procedural position and the institutional interests of the court: the plaintiffs are compelled to seek transfer to Central West, and the Hamilton proceeding is frozen pending that decision.

With respect to success and monetary consequences, this endorsement determines only procedural and administrative questions. It does not declare any party substantively liable, does not award damages, and does not contain any explicit order for costs. On the issues of venue and forum, the defendants’ position is effectively upheld because Hamilton is found to have no rational connection to the dispute and the plaintiffs are ordered to pursue transfer in Central West. However, since the decision is silent on any costs or compensatory sums, and there is no quantified monetary relief awarded to any party in this endorsement, the total amount ordered in favour of the successful party cannot be determined from this decision and, as far as this endorsement goes, stands at zero for both damages and costs.