3 total
Active corporation found to be true lessee of rental vehicle, triggering its insurance policy in priority.
The defendants brought a motion to determine which of two motor vehicle liability policies must respond to the plaintiffs' personal injury claim following a collision involving a rental vehicle.
The issue turned on whether the true lessee of the vehicle was the dormant corporation named on the rental account or the active corporation that employed the driver and paid for the rental.
Applying agency principles, the court found that the active corporation was the true lessee, meaning its insurance policy must respond in priority.
The motion was resolved in favour of the defendants.
Action against foreign defendant stayed for lack of jurisdiction; expired foreign limitation period does not create forum of necessity.
The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant in Michigan.
The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario against the Michigan defendant in tort and his own insurer for underinsured coverage.
The Michigan defendant moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.
The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found no presumptive connecting factors linking the tort claim to Ontario.
The court also declined to apply the forum of necessity doctrine, holding that the plaintiff's failure to commence an action in Michigan before the expiry of its limitation period did not create an exceptional circumstance justifying jurisdiction.
The action against the Michigan defendant was stayed.
Court orders limited SIU file disclosure where redactions create unfairness to plaintiff.
The plaintiff brought a Rule 30.10 motion seeking production of portions of a Special Investigations Unit investigation file arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a police vehicle.
Relevance of the requested materials was conceded, but the Attorney General on behalf of the SIU opposed disclosure on the basis of witness confidentiality and the exceptional nature of non-party production.
The court reviewed the sealed SIU materials and applied the fairness test under Rule 30.10, balancing confidentiality interests against the plaintiff’s ability to fairly prepare for trial on the contested issue of liability.
Because the police materials already produced to the plaintiff were heavily redacted and prevented effective investigation and contact with a key civilian witness, the court found it would be unfair for the plaintiff to proceed without certain SIU documents.
The court ordered production of specific investigator summaries and notes relating to officer witnesses and one civilian witness but declined to order production of audio recordings and other investigative materials.
