John J. Jones

The defendant Ryder Truck Rental Canada Ltd. brought a motion in writing to lift a stay of proceedings and dismiss the action in its entirety without costs.

The plaintiffs had resolved their claim with the co-defendant insurer and elected not to proceed against the remaining defendants.

The court found that a previous noting in default of the individual defendant while the stay was in place was invalid, but that noting in default was not required to dismiss the action.

The court lifted the stay for the sole purpose of dismissing the action without costs on consent of the participating parties.

The defendant Ryder Truck Rental requested an order lifting a previously imposed stay of proceedings and dismissing the action on consent.

The court noted that the defendant Minassian had been noted in default after the stay order was issued, and that a noting in default obtained during a stay should not be given effect.

The court directed that any request to lift the stay and dismiss the action must be made by way of a formal motion in writing on notice to all parties.

This endorsement, issued by the Case Management Judge, addresses a request for leave by Aviva General Insurance Company to bring a motion to amend a prior order to add Aviva as a statutory third party in various actions arising from a specific incident.

The court directs that any such request for leave must be made by way of a motion in writing, on notice to all necessary parties, in accordance with Rule 37.12.1(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The endorsement also includes directions for distributing the order and notifying an incarcerated defendant.

The defendant brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the counsel briefly acted for third parties in the same action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the plaintiff's lawyers received confidential information from the defendant, that the defendant was ever their client, or that the third parties supported the motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff due to the unsupported allegations of professional misconduct.

A defendant sought a declaration that one or more insurers had a duty to defend her in a personal injury action arising from an incident involving a hydraulic lift on a rented truck.

The court analyzed whether coverage was available under multiple automobile policies and a homeowner’s policy, and the priority between them.

Applying the pleadings rule for the duty to defend and the statutory framework under the Insurance Act, the court found that the claim arose from the use or operation of the rented vehicle.

The insurer of the rental truck was held to have the primary duty to defend, while the homeowner’s policy was excess and the other automobile policies did not afford coverage.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to dismiss an indemnification action brought by another insurer arising from a motor vehicle accident involving insured property.

The plaintiff insurer had denied coverage to its insured and was later found liable in separate litigation, after which it sought statutory indemnity from the other insurer whose insured driver was allegedly at fault.

The court considered whether the claim for contribution and indemnity was barred under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff insurer was an alleged wrongdoer in the underlying action and that its indemnity claim fell within the contribution and indemnity regime governed by s. 18.

Because the plaintiff did not bring a third-party claim or otherwise commence its indemnity claim within two years of being served with the original statement of claim, the action was statute-barred.

The appellant rented a truck to transport a machine, which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant sought compensation from the truck lessor's insurer.

The insurer denied coverage, and the motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the policy excluded coverage for property carried in the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the direct compensation for property damage provisions under s. 263 of the Insurance Act applied, treating the lessee as a third party.

The court further held that exclusions in the rental agreement and any misrepresentation of the cargo did not limit the appellant's right to recover under the statutory scheme.