The insurer brought a motion to have an insurance coverage action tried together with an earlier negligence action arising from the same residential renovation damage.
The court held that causation of the alleged property damage was a common and critical factual issue in both actions, and that the relief claimed arose out of the same occurrence or series of occurrences.
Applying the Rule 6.01 discretionary framework and the non-exhaustive factors from prior authority, the court found that overlapping evidence, risk of inconsistent findings, and avoidance of duplicate expert and witness testimony strongly favoured a joint trial.
The motion was granted, joint procedural directions were made, and there was no order as to costs.
