Patrick M. Essig

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and held Ontario courts lack jurisdiction over the claims against the Italian defendants.

The majority accepted the Ontario cardmember agreement as a presumptive connecting contract but found the presumption rebutted because the real and substantial connection to Ontario was weak given the tort occurred in Italy and the foreign defendants’ relationship to Ontario was remote.

The dissent would have restored the motion judge’s ruling and allowed Ontario jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by non-settling defendants challenging the approval of a Pierringer agreement in a multi-party motor vehicle accident case.

The court held that the agreement did not cause substantive prejudice to the non-settling defendants, as the Negligence Act places the risk of an insolvent or impecunious tortfeasor on the remaining tortfeasors, not the victim.

The court also declined to grant procedural orders in advance, leaving such matters to the trial judge.

This case conference addressed a dispute arising from a settled personal injury claim where the plaintiff refused to sign a release containing a "no admission of liability" clause.

The settlement agreement was silent on the specific terms of the release.

The court found that, in the context of an insurance claim where liability was denied throughout, a "no admission of liability" clause is objectively implied by a settlement and is standard in the industry.

The plaintiff was therefore required to sign the release with the impugned clause.

No costs were awarded.

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 plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's dismissal order for delay in prosecuting the action.

The court considered factors including the length and explanation of litigation delay, inadvertence in missing the set-down deadline, promptness of bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

While the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the litigation delay and did not bring the motion promptly, the court found no significant prejudice to the defendants.

Emphasizing that prejudice is a key consideration and that cases should be determined on their merits, especially when delay results from counsel error, the court granted the motion and set aside the dismissal order.

No costs were awarded.