Roderic McLauchlan

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.

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.

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.

In the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University, the applicant sought an order regarding a Compensation Claims Process.

On consent, the court deferred relief related to Third Party RHBP Claims to a subsequent hearing, ordering that the deadlines and procedures in the Compensation Claims Process Order would not apply to those claims at this time.

The remaining unopposed relief was granted.

The defendant vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a truck accident, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act barred the claim because the negligent driver was a protected worker.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal had previously barred claims against the driver and employer but permitted a limited action against the vehicle owner.

The court considered whether s. 29 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precluded a statutory vicarious liability claim against the owner under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court held that the workers’ compensation regime eliminates joint liability with protected defendants but does not abolish statutory vicarious liability claims against unprotected vehicle owners.

Because the statute did not clearly remove such liability, the claim against the owner could proceed.