Joshua Henderson

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

Vale Canada and its primary insurer, RSA, brought actions against numerous excess insurers for coverage of environmental remediation costs incurred primarily in Ontario.

Several foreign excess insurers brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court or seeking a stay based on forum non conveniens in favour of an action in New York.

The court found it had jurisdiction over all moving insurers except North River Insurance Company, concluding that the insurers were 'carrying on business' in Ontario by participating in a global insurance program for an Ontario-based company.

The court declined to stay the actions for forum non conveniens, finding Ontario to be the 'centre of gravity' for the dispute.

Claims by Vale Canada against two UK insurers were stayed pending arbitration.

In a class action concerning defective airbag inflators, the plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to lift a stay against Takata Corporation, dismiss the action with prejudice and without costs against Takata Corporation and TK Holdings Inc., and amend the title of proceedings to leave Nissan Canada Inc. as the sole defendant.

The motion followed bankruptcy and civil rehabilitation proceedings in the US and Japan, which were recognized in Canada under the CCAA and released the Takata entities from liability.

The court granted the order as requested.

The plaintiffs brought an action against multiple insurers for indemnity regarding environmental damage.

Several foreign defendants failed to deliver statements of defence within the required time limits, and one was noted in default.

The defendants sought an extension of time to defend or bring jurisdictional motions, arguing the court should wait for the outcome of a parallel proceeding commenced by one of the insurers in the United States.

The court refused to delay the Ontario proceeding, finding no prejudice to the defendants in requiring them to respond timely, and ordered the defendants to deliver their statements of defence or motion records by a specified deadline.

The plaintiff requested an urgent motion to strike the defendant's jury notice, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause a multi-year delay and that jurors taking public transit might be biased against the plaintiff in a claim against the Toronto Transit Commission.

The plaintiff also argued the case was too complex for a jury.

The court declined to schedule the urgent motion, noting that civil jury trials were proceeding in Toronto with social distancing measures, eliminating the delay argument.

The court found the bias argument to be pure speculation and held that any motion to strike based on complexity should be brought before the trial judge using the 'wait and see' approach.