Rosalind H. Cooper

The proposed intervenors brought a motion to intervene as added parties in an application concerning the interpretation of an indemnity agreement.

The proposed intervenors were defendants in a related main action regarding environmental contamination, but were not parties to the indemnity agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenors had no direct interest in the subject matter of the application, would not be adversely affected by its outcome, and shared no common questions of law or fact with the parties.

The court also noted that intervention would likely complicate and delay the proceedings without providing a useful contribution.

The moving plaintiff sought to set aside a registrar's dismissal for delay and obtain leave to file a substantially expanded amended statement of claim in contamination litigation.

Applying a contextual approach under rule 37.14 and related jurisprudence, the court found the delay had adequate explanation in light of counsel changes, document-production disputes, and evolving contamination evidence.

The court also held the proposed amendments did not plead a new cause of action, and alternatively found limitation issues unsuitable for determination on a pleadings motion.

The dismissal order was set aside, leave to amend was granted subject to limitation defences, costs were fixed against one responding party, and costs as between the plaintiff and the railway were reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant, General Electric Canada Company, sought a declaration that its insurers had a duty to defend it regarding a request by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to delineate the source of TCE contamination on its former property.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the MOE letter was a request for voluntary action and the costs incurred were compliance costs, not defence costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, applying the pleadings rule and concluding that the MOE letter did not constitute a claim that triggered the insurers' duty to defend.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision granting the plaintiffs' motion to amend their statement of claim to convert their individual environmental contamination action into a class proceeding.

The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction to convert an individual action to a class proceeding, applied the wrong test for the amendment, and improperly allowed the addition of potentially statute-barred claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the court had jurisdiction, that the Rule 26.01 test for amendments applied, and that limitation period issues were best left for the certification stage.

The appellant, RPL Recycling & Transfer Limited, appealed a Director's Order regarding its waste transfer station and sought an extension of a previously granted stay.

At a preliminary hearing, a neighbouring business, Hymopack Limited, requested party or participant status due to concerns about dust and site operations.

The Tribunal granted Hymopack the option to choose either party or participant status.

The Tribunal also extended the stay of the Director's Order to allow the appellant time to amend its Certificate of Approval, adjourning the preliminary hearing to a later teleconference.