Amy Pressman

An insurer (State Farm) sought to pursue a subrogated claim against fuel oil suppliers for contamination losses.

The central issue was whether the insurer could commence the action in the name of its bankrupt insured or whether it was required to proceed in the name of the trustee in bankruptcy.

The majority held that the insurer's subrogation rights do not create a proprietary interest in the cause of action itself, and that upon the insured's bankruptcy, the cause of action vested in the trustee.

Consequently, the insurer could not commence the action in the name of the undischarged bankrupt but should have proceeded in the trustee's name.

The majority dismissed the action.

A dissent would have remitted the matter to permit the insurer to regularize the action by substituting the trustee as plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued ten fuel providers for losses arising from fraudulent fuel card transactions.

The defendants brought motions to sever the proceedings.

The parties agreed to sever the claims against the Imperial defendants and stay the remaining claims pending the outcome of the Imperial action.

Shell brought a separate motion to stay the action against it based on a forum selection clause designating Alberta as the exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Shell's motion, finding that the policy against a multiplicity of proceedings constituted 'strong cause' to override the forum selection clause.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim brought by an insurer in the names of the respondents for damages arising from a fuel oil spill.

The appellants argued the action was a nullity because the respondents were undischarged bankrupts when the claim was issued, meaning their causes of action had vested in their Trustees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurer's subrogation rights crystallized before the husband's assignment in bankruptcy, and the Trustee had disclaimed interest in the insurance claims.

Thus, the insurer was entitled to commence the action in the husband's name.

The plaintiff successfully obtained an interim injunction against the defendants during a labour strike that was causing significant delays to the plaintiff's operations.

The only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $205,000, including significant disbursements for private investigators, while the defendants suggested $15,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs excessive and punitive, noting the legal and factual issues were straightforward.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $37,083.80, which included a significantly reduced allowance for the investigator disbursements and legal fees.

The applicants, who recently took over the operation of a convenience store, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision applying a tobacco sales prohibition order to them.

The prohibition was issued under section 16 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act because employees of the prior, unrelated operator had been twice convicted of selling tobacco to minors.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that on a purposive interpretation of the Act, the prohibition can only be applied to a person who has committed at least one tobacco sales offence.

Since the applicants had never been convicted of such an offence, the Minister lacked jurisdiction to apply the prohibition to them.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motion decision permitting a fully subrogated insurer to continue an action in the names of insureds despite one insured being an undischarged bankrupt when the action was commenced.

The court held the proposed appeal raised important issues of insurance and insolvency law and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's ruling.

Applying settled bankruptcy and subrogation principles, the court held that the bankrupt insured's cause of action vested in the trustee and that a subrogated insurer could assert only the rights available to the insured.

Because no assignment from the trustee was obtained before the limitation period expired, leave to appeal was granted.

Homeowners’ insurer brought a fully subrogated action against fuel oil suppliers following a residential oil spill after indemnifying the insureds for remediation and property losses exceeding $800,000.

The insureds had filed for bankruptcy prior to the action being commenced.

The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the insureds lacked capacity to sue because their causes of action vested in the bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that once the insureds were fully indemnified, the insurer became dominus litis and was entitled to pursue the claim in the insureds’ names.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act did not extinguish or override the insurer’s subrogation rights, and allowing the defendants’ motion would improperly allow an alleged wrongdoer to benefit from the existence of insurance.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that ordered the production of an insurance policy under Rule 30.02(3).

The motion judge had originally refused production, finding the policy was sought for a collateral purpose and that uncontradicted evidence showed the deductible exceeded the claim amount.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not make a palpable and overriding error by relying on uncontradicted affidavit evidence without reading the policy itself.

The Divisional Court's order for production was set aside and the motion judge's decision was restored.