Rui M. Fernandes

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.

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 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.