Jump to content

QAF

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This is a case in SCC in BC. I'm the defendant, prone to epileptic seizures under stress. I suffered two grand mal seizures on the date of a settlement conference already, one at the outset of the event. The plaintiffs brought the case where they live. which is a whole day's travel from my end of the province and would take me away from my medical support network.
  2. Are there precedents where the defendant's inadvisability to travel for health reasons was used in a successful motion to change venue? The balance of convenience test in Rule 13.1.02(2) is mainly used to weigh inconvenience/cost of using one location vs. another. But if traveling to a distant location exposes the defendant to a potentially life-threatening health complication, can that override cost considerations and argue for moving the venue to where the defendant lives and works?
×
×
  • Create New...