Kimberly Ann Newton

The plaintiff, a trucking broker, sought summary judgment against two defendant carriers for damages arising from the theft of a poultry shipment, including the value of the goods and significant customs duties levied due to the theft occurring in Canada.

The defendants denied liability, citing lack of notice and unforeseeable damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that the factual matrix, including conflicting evidence on sub-brokering authorization, untested expert opinions, and unresolved issues regarding notice of claim under the Carriage of Goods Regulation, was not suitable for disposition under Rule 76 simplified procedure.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The appellant insurer denied third-party liability coverage to the owner of an ATV after his son, who held only a G1 licence, was involved in a serious accident while driving the ATV on a highway.

The motion judge found that the owner had only permitted his son to drive on a specific lane he mistakenly believed was not a highway, and did not permit him to drive on the highway where the accident occurred.

The motion judge concluded the owner was not in breach of Statutory Condition 4(1) at the time of the incident, and alternatively granted relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings regarding the scope of permission granted, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she was allegedly cut off by an unidentified black pick-up truck.

She sought a declaration that she could access the $1 million limit under her OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement.

The insurer argued that the independent witness's statement to the investigating police officer was inadmissible hearsay and could not satisfy the endorsement's corroboration requirement.

The court held that the corroboration requirement in the insurance contract does not strictly require admissible evidence, and the hearsay statement to the police officer provided sufficient independent indication of an unidentified vehicle's involvement to trigger coverage.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion under Rules 30.10 and 31.10 for production of documents and examination for discovery from certain non-party corporations and individuals.

The information sought related to the deceased plaintiff's past and future dependency loss claims, which exceeded $5,000,000.

The court granted the request for production of specific financial and corporate documents from the non-party entities, finding it necessary to avoid trial unfairness given the plaintiffs' reliance on this information for their expert report.

However, the motion for leave to examine the non-party individuals was dismissed as premature, with leave to renew if the produced documents proved insufficient.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add a proposed defendant to a motor vehicle accident claim after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff argued she only discovered the proposed defendant's involvement when informed by the existing defendants' counsel, as the police report she received only showed two vehicles.

The proposed defendant argued the plaintiff was aware of his presence at the scene.

The Master found an issue of fact regarding discoverability and granted the motion to add the defendant, leaving the limitations defence to be pleaded and determined at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add an insurer as a defendant for unidentified motorist coverage, over four years after learning an unidentified vehicle was involved in the accident.

The proposed defendant argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court applied recent appellate jurisprudence holding that the limitation period for an unidentified motorist claim does not begin to run until a demand for indemnity is made and refused.

As no demand had yet been refused, the limitation period had not expired, and the motion to amend was granted.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion, the court determined costs as between the moving defendants and other defendants in related actions.

The court held that parties against whom specific relief was sought were entitled to costs even though they filed no responding materials, did not cross-examine, and made no oral submissions, because it was reasonable for them to review the materials and attend to protect their clients' interests.

Applying general costs principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced amounts.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 all-inclusive for two responding defendants jointly and $2,000 all-inclusive for another responding defendant.

The applicant judgment creditor sought recovery from the respondent insurer under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act after obtaining default judgment against an insured motor carrier for a destroyed food shipment.

The court held that the insurer could assert against the applicant any defence it would have had against its insured, including material misrepresentation in the insurance application.

The insured had answered negatively when asked whether it had contracts with shippers requiring liability terms superseding its standard bill of lading, despite having a contract exposing it to the full actual value of shipments.

The court found the freight forwarder functioned as a shipper in this context, the non-disclosure was material because it would have increased the premium, and the policy was void.

The application was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $15,000, all inclusive.

The appellant, a shipping agent, was sued in Ontario for the loss of cargo stolen from a Quebec warehouse.

The appellant brought a third-party claim against the Quebec warehouse operator.

The motion judge stayed the third-party claim for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the existence of a proper third-party claim under Rule 29 should be recognized as a new presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a third-party claim without a factual connection to Ontario does not establish a real and substantial connection to assume jurisdiction over a foreign party.