In T. v. Klick Inc., 2025 ONSC 4305, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a defendant employer’s motion to transfer a wrongful dismissal action from the Hamilton region to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was dismissed, with the Court finding the plaintiff’s choice of Hamilton was reasonable and that Toronto was not “significantly better.”
Background
The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action in Hamilton in September 2024. Discoveries were completed in February 2025, and the matter was set down for trial. Only at that stage did the defendant, Klick Inc., move to transfer the action to Toronto.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing her childcare obligations and evidence of residing part-time in Hamilton following her dismissal.
The Legal Framework: Rule 13.1.02
Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) allows a proceeding to be transferred if the proposed venue is “significantly better” than the plaintiff’s chosen forum. Courts apply a holistic test, considering:
- Location of parties and witnesses
- Convenience and expense of travel
- Where events giving rise to the dispute occurred
- Plaintiff’s personal circumstances (including childcare and residence)
The Court cited C. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd., 2014 ONSC 1897, which confirmed that a plaintiff is initially entitled to commence proceedings in the court location of their choice. A defendant seeking transfer must establish that its proposed venue is significantly better.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Firestone emphasized that venue motions are not a numerical exercise but require balancing all factors in the interests of justice.
- Childcare obligations: The plaintiff testified to splitting time between Toronto, Port Credit, and Hamilton, with significant childcare support tied to her mother’s residence in Port Credit. Since her dismissal, she had been spending up to half the week in Hamilton.
- Connection to Hamilton: The Court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that Hamilton was a reasonable choice of forum, particularly given the potential for an in-person trial under the Consolidated Civil Practice Direction.
- Employer’s position: Klick Inc. argued that its head office and executives were in Toronto. However, the Court noted that events and damages did not occur exclusively in Toronto, including the termination, which took place remotely while the plaintiff was in Port Credit.
The Court concluded that the defendant had not established that Toronto was significantly better. The motion was dismissed.
Takeaways
This decision reinforces several important points for employment litigation:
- Timing matters: The defendant waited until after discoveries and the matter being set down for trial before bringing the motion. Courts may view late venue challenges skeptically.
- Plaintiff’s evidence is key: Personal circumstances, such as childcare and residence patterns, can weigh heavily in venue decisions.
- Holistic balancing: Employer location alone will rarely justify transfer. Courts look at the broader context, including where events and damages occurred.
- Procedural caution: Venue motions should be considered early in litigation strategy, especially in wrongful dismissal actions where plaintiffs may rely on their chosen forum for practical reasons.
This decision shows that Ontario courts will not automatically grant an employer’s request to change the location of a wrongful dismissal case. Venue decisions are made holistically, with careful attention to the employee’s circumstances and the overall interests of justice. For lawyers, it highlights the importance of addressing venue strategy early in litigation. For employees, it is a reminder that courts do take personal factors — such as where you live and family obligations — into account.
If you are facing a wrongful dismissal or have questions about your employment rights, contact Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers through the form below for a free 30 minute phone consultation.