4 total
Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error regarding a party's position on forum.
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.
Jurisdiction upheld over foreign excess insurers participating in global insurance program for Ontario-based insured.
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.
Court refuses to delay Ontario insurance coverage action pending parallel US proceeding.
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.
Non-party insurer lacks standing to object to a Pierringer Agreement order between plaintiffs and settling defendants.
The plaintiffs sought to settle an order approving a Pierringer Agreement with the settling defendants.
A non-party insurer, who was a defendant in a separate action brought by one of the plaintiffs, objected to the wording of the order, arguing it would affect its rights.
The court held that the non-party insurer had no standing to object to the order in this action and signed the draft order as agreed to by the parties.
