Rui M. Fernandes

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous or vexatious.

The registrar was directed to give notice to the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissal, to stay the plaintiff’s actions pending the outcome of the written hearing, and to limit further filings to the plaintiff’s written submissions.

The endorsement sets out procedural steps for both the registrar and the parties.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim was found to be very poorly pleaded and would require amendment to allow a response.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

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 plaintiffs, ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. and IWK (Thailand) Ltd., brought a motion to temporarily stay their action against Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.

The action concerned insurance coverage for damaged medical packaging equipment shipped from Thailand to India.

The plaintiffs sought the stay pending the final resolution of related arbitral proceedings in India, arguing that the issues were intertwined and a stay would prevent prejudice and promote efficiency.

Chubb opposed the stay, asserting it had no standing in the Indian arbitration, that the plaintiffs had suffered no insurable loss under the policy (which only covered ocean carriage to Chennai, not inland transit), and that the action was a placeholder.

The court refused the stay, finding that the interpretation of the Chubb policy was irrelevant to the Indian arbitration, that there was no certainty of the arbitration proceeding, and that delaying Chubb's opportunity to seek summary judgment would cause prejudice.

The court emphasized the principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability in civil litigation, as articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The applicant trucking company sought declarations of insurance coverage after its cargo of electronic goods was stolen.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on two grounds: that the goods were not in the applicant's custody and that the applicant misrepresented the type of cargo.

The court rejected both grounds, finding that the goods were covered under the policy and that no material misrepresentation occurred.

However, the court declined to order a specific indemnity amount due to the claim value not being crystallized, instead issuing declarations in the applicant's favour.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a modest scale.

The appellant, Broadgrain Commodities Inc., sold sesame seeds to Beidahuang Grain Group Co. Ltd. under a CIF contract.

The goods were damaged during transit.

The appellant obtained marine insurance from the respondent, Continental Casualty Company, but the respondent denied coverage.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action, finding that although the appellant had an insurable interest, it sustained no loss as it was paid in full by Beidahuang.

The appellant appealed, arguing it suffered loss through subsequent short-payments from Beidahuang.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to provide any credible evidence of loss and that a self-serving affidavit without supporting documentation was insufficient to create a triable issue.

The defendant was wholly successful on a summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action regarding a marine insurance claim.

The court previously awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale and requested submissions on quantum.

After considering the complexity of the factual and legal issues, the volume of document production, and the amount claimed, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $50,848.75 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for compensation under a marine insurance policy for damaged cargo.

The defendant argued the plaintiff lacked an insurable interest and suffered no loss because the buyer paid in full.

The court found the plaintiff maintained an insurable interest throughout the voyage under the broad definition in the Marine Insurance Act.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that it suffered a loss, relying only on a bald assertion that it was short-paid on subsequent shipments.

The appellants, a group of trucking companies, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for two shipments of copper tubing hijacked in Mexico.

The trial judge found the appellants could not rely on exclusion of liability clauses or statutory limitations, and were alternatively liable in tort.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the exclusion clauses did not apply because they were not brought to the respondent's attention.

However, the Court held the trial judge erred in finding the statutory limitation of liability did not apply, as the value of the goods was not declared on the face of the bill of lading.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in finding independent tort liability.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the judgment to the statutory limit of $110,830.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion, the court determined costs as between the moving defendants and other defendants in related actions.

The court held that parties against whom specific relief was sought were entitled to costs even though they filed no responding materials, did not cross-examine, and made no oral submissions, because it was reasonable for them to review the materials and attend to protect their clients' interests.

Applying general costs principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced amounts.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 all-inclusive for two responding defendants jointly and $2,000 all-inclusive for another responding defendant.

The applicant judgment creditor sought recovery from the respondent insurer under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act after obtaining default judgment against an insured motor carrier for a destroyed food shipment.

The court held that the insurer could assert against the applicant any defence it would have had against its insured, including material misrepresentation in the insurance application.

The insured had answered negatively when asked whether it had contracts with shippers requiring liability terms superseding its standard bill of lading, despite having a contract exposing it to the full actual value of shipments.

The court found the freight forwarder functioned as a shipper in this context, the non-disclosure was material because it would have increased the premium, and the policy was void.

The application was dismissed.

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.

The applicants obtained a judgment against a moving company after their belongings were stolen from a trailer parked on the street.

When the judgment went unsatisfied, they brought an application under s. 132 of the Insurance Act against the moving company's insurers.

The application judge found that the loss fell under the $1 million warehouse insurance limit rather than the $500,000 transportation insurance limit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the primary insurer's appeal in part, holding that the breach was a failure to deliver under the transportation contract, so the $500,000 transportation limit applied.

However, the Court upheld the application judge's finding that the insurer was liable for post-judgment interest and costs exceeding the policy limit.

These appeals arose from two Ontario boating accidents involving deaths and serious injuries, and required the Court to determine the scope of Canadian maritime law, the constitutional applicability of provincial statutes in maritime negligence actions, and the proper limitation period for fatal accident claims.

The Court held that provincial superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court over dependants’ maritime fatal accident claims under the Canada Shipping Act.

It established a four-part framework for assessing whether provincial statutes may apply in maritime negligence cases, emphasizing the core federal nature and required uniformity of maritime negligence law.

The Court judicially reformed Canadian maritime law to permit claims for loss of guidance, care and companionship and survival claims by estates, but held siblings could not qualify as dependants.

It further held that maritime collision claims were governed by the two-year limitation period in s. 572(1) of the Canada Shipping Act, and dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals with costs.