The Plaintiff in the crossclaim sought to transfer a long-running Action from Edmonton to Calgary, primarily based on her long-ago relocation from Camrose to Calgary, her health concerns, and the disproportionate share of witnesses based in and around Calgary.

The Court focused its analysis on the first branch of Rule 3.5, being whether it was unreasonable for the Action to be carried on in Edmonton. The Court then considered Rule 3.3 in the context of determining the issue of who bore the onus in a change-of-venue Application.

The Court noted that Rule 3.3 provides that the appropriate judicial centre is either: (a) the closest judicial centre, by road, to the Alberta residence or place of business of all the parties, or (b) if a single judicial centre cannot be determined, the closest judicial center to the party commencing the Action. Citing Odland v Odland, 2017 ABCA 397, the Court stated that if the Plaintiff’s selection of judicial centre is in compliance with Rule 3.3, then the onus of proving the Plaintiff’s choice was unreasonable is on the Defendant; however, if the Plaintiff’s selection does not comply with Rule 3.3, then the onus shifts to the Plaintiff. The Court determined that the onus was on the Applicant to prove that Edmonton was an unreasonable venue for the remainder of the Action, since the Applicant did not challenge the cross-Defendant’s selection of Edmonton in the first place and filed her crossclaim in Edmonton.

Next, the Court referred to leading authority which provided factors for gauging venue reasonableness, including: (a) the number of parties or witnesses in the current and proposed judicial centres; (b) the nature of the issues in the lawsuit; (c) the relationship between the parties in respect of the issues in the lawsuit; (d) the parties’ financial resources; (e) the stage of proceedings; (f) the convenience of location for pre-Trial motions; and (g) the location of relevant assets.

The Court applied the factors to the facts and dismissed the Application, concluding that the balance of convenience favoured the Action continuing in Edmonton. The Court decided the Application based on the following factors: (a) central-events location closer to Edmonton than Calgary; (b) the Applicant had concurred with Edmonton as the place of Trial; (c) the Applicant’s move to Calgary was not a reason for a venue change on its own; (d) the location of witnesses; (e) the Applicant’s financial means and health considerations; (f) the location of counsel; (g) Trial-time availability; (g) remote-appearance aspect; and (h) the Applicant’s self-representing status.