Rui Fernandes

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.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury claim arising from a zip-line accident, relying on a participant agreement containing a waiver of liability.

The plaintiff argued the waiver was invalid or unenforceable because she did not understand she was signing a release, the waiver language was ambiguous, and the circumstances of signing were misleading.

The court held that the evidentiary record was incomplete regarding the conditions under which the agreement was presented and signed, including potential misrepresentations and the plaintiff’s understanding of the document.

Given the document’s structure, typographical errors, and disputed circumstances, the court concluded that credibility findings and a full evidentiary record were required.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the enforceability of the waiver must be determined at trial.