Douglas Michael Gill Stewart

This decision concerns the continuation of refusals motions in complex insurance litigation involving environmental claims at 26 mining sites operated by Vale Canada Limited.

The court addresses the proportionality and sufficiency of discovery efforts, the organization and resolution of thousands of discovery refusals, and sets out directions for further production and inquiry.

The ruling emphasizes the need for balance and proportionality in discovery, especially in large-scale litigation, and provides a framework for resolving outstanding discovery disputes ahead of trial.

This endorsement addresses motions by the defendant insurers to compel Vale Canada Limited to answer refusals arising from oral and written discovery in complex insurance litigation concerning environmental claims at 26 mining sites.

The court reviews the status of discovery, the parties' agreements, and the proportionality of further discovery requests, including the use of exemplar and bridge charts to manage voluminous refusals.

The decision provides detailed directions on categories of refusals, privilege claims, and the process for resolving outstanding discovery issues, emphasizing proportionality, cooperation, and case management to keep the matter on track for trial.

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 defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fraud action for inordinate and inexcusable delay spanning over nine years.

The plaintiff attributed delays to corporate restructurings, database corruption, and translation requirements.

The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's responsibility to advance the action and the lack of compelling reasons for the multi-year inaction.

The court also found a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible due to fading memories of critical viva voce evidence, especially given the fraud allegations.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed with costs to the defendants.

The defendants, Forever 21, Inc. and Forever XXI, ULC, brought a motion seeking a stay of action or to strike the Statement of Claim on the basis of a duplicative proceeding commenced in California.

The dispute arose from a contract between the plaintiff, Ryan ULC, and Forever 21, Inc., concerning HST and GST rebates.

The court applied the convenient forum test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, considering factors such as convenience and expense for the parties, the law to be applied, the desirability of avoiding multiple legal proceedings and conflicting decisions, and the enforceability of judgment.

The court found that the factors, on balance, favored the defendants, and granted the stay.

The plaintiffs, Arlene Stevenson and Mira Melien, brought a motion for certification of a class action against Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Canada Inc., and Subaru Canada Inc. for settlement purposes, along with approval of the notice plan, and appointment of administrators.

The class action concerned alleged economic loss arising from Takata airbag inflators in Mazda and Subaru vehicles.

The court found that all criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied, even with a less rigorous application in the settlement context.

The motion was granted, certifying the action for settlement purposes and approving the related relief.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.