Joshua Jeremy Arthur Henderson

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order against the Tecumseh defendants for failing to produce a representative for examination for discovery as per a prior court order.

The defendants argued that their designated representative, Mr. Goldin, was unable to attend due to a recent cancer diagnosis.

The court found that while the order was clear and known to the defendants, the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' non-compliance was intentional, given Mr. Goldin's medical difficulties and the defendants' subsequent efforts to propose alternative solutions.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The defendant daycare brought a motion for summary judgment in a negligence action after a three-year-old child broke his arm falling from a play structure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of supervision adequacy, staff training, and policy implementation required significant credibility assessments and a highly contextual legal analysis, making the case unsuitable for resolution via summary judgment.

The court emphasized the difficulty of assessing credibility on a paper record, particularly when the injured child could not provide evidence, and declined to order a mini-trial.

Following a discovery-related motion concerning undertakings and production of Schedule B documents, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the result of the motion and the parties’ settlement offers.

Although the defendant had agreed to disclose some documents prior to the hearing and had answered undertakings promptly, the court found the plaintiffs were ultimately more successful and had been required to bring the motion.

The court exercised its discretion to fix costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment arising from an oil spill at a residential property allegedly caused when falling ice and debris severed an outdoor fuel oil line connected to a tank installed by one defendant and later visually inspected by another.

The plaintiff alleged negligent installation and inspection in breach of regulatory standards requiring protection of fuel lines from physical damage.

The defendants argued the event was unforeseeable and resulted from the collapse of building components for which the homeowner was responsible.

The court held that the case involved conflicting expert opinions regarding the standard of care and causation.

Applying the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the dispute required the trial process to properly evaluate the competing expert evidence.

The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment arising from an oil spill at a residential property allegedly caused when falling ice and debris severed an outdoor fuel oil line connected to a tank installed by one defendant and later visually inspected by another.

The plaintiff alleged negligent installation and inspection in breach of regulatory standards requiring protection of fuel lines from physical damage.

The defendants argued the event was unforeseeable and resulted from the collapse of building components for which the homeowner was responsible.

The court held that the case involved conflicting expert opinions regarding the standard of care and causation.

Applying the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the dispute required the trial process to properly evaluate the competing expert evidence.