Jamie Trimble

An insurer sought a declaration determining which of two insurance policies responded to liability arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a rented vehicle operated by an employee of a production company.

The dispute turned on whether the vehicle had been leased under a single agreement exceeding 30 days, triggering coverage under a commercial general liability policy, or under a series of shorter rental contracts that would leave coverage under a standard automobile policy.

The respondent argued the issue was barred by issue estoppel following earlier proceedings and an appellate decision.

The court held that the prior appellate ruling set aside the earlier decision only because the evidentiary record was insufficient and therefore did not create issue estoppel on the substantive question.

Interpreting the limited documentary record, the court concluded the rental arrangement constituted a single agreement of more than 30 days and that the respondent insurer was required to respond.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made findings of fact without any evidence, which constituted a palpable and overriding error.

Furthermore, the reasons provided were wholly inadequate and logically inconsistent, making appellate review impossible.

The appeal was allowed with costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a costs order of $131,000 awarded to the respondents following a successful motion to stay the action.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by relying too heavily on the hours spent and the costs grid, resulting in an award that was not fair and reasonable and exceeded the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Court reduced the costs award to $67,500, emphasizing that the time claimed for preparation was excessive for a motion that was not complex.

The appellant appealed an order staying his Ontario contract action against the respondents on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and Florida was the most convenient forum.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by relying on a privileged letter, finding the agreement contained a Florida arbitration provision, and failing to consider the risk of a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the Muscutt test, the letter was not privileged, and the factual findings were supported by the evidence.