Ontario Civil

Conflict of Laws

Would be difficult to convince medical providers to travel to Michigan to testify

Motion by defendant for stay of proceedings. Plaintiffs were passengers in vehicle that was involved in collision with vehicle that was owned and driven by defendant. Plaintiffs lived in Ontario. Defendant lived in state of Michigan, United States. Accident occurred in Michigan. Plaintiffs issued their statement of claim in Ontario. Motion dismissed. Superior Court of Province of Ontario had jurisdiction to try action. Ontario was more convenient forum. It would be considerably less expensive and more convenient for plaintiffs to prove their damages in Ontario. Plaintiff’s witnesses could not be compelled to testify in Michigan. It would be difficult for plaintiffs to arrange or convince their medical providers to travel to court in Michigan to testify.

Gordon v. Deiotte

(Apr. 3, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Koke J., File No. 25432/11) 214 A.C.W.S. (3d) 105 (11 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A recent Court of Appeal decision found the effects of internet defamation distinguishes it from defamation in other mediums, when it comes to awarding damages. Do you agree with this finding?