Sarah Sweet

The plaintiff brought a motion to inspect documents over which the defendant claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege in an action for property damage allegedly caused by negligent road construction.

The court reviewed the disputed documents and found that most were protected by privilege, as litigation was contemplated early in the parties' negotiations.

The court ordered the production of a few documents that did not meet the test for privilege.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had impliedly waived privilege in its Statement of Defence, but granted the plaintiff's motion to strike a paragraph of the Statement of Defence with leave to amend.

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

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 appellant, Felice Scala, appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his claim for damages alleging excessive police force during his arrest and the associated costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility, which largely favoured the police officers' account over the appellant's.

The trial judge found the appellant's evidence inconsistent and implausible, while the police officers' evidence was credible and reliable.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or the application of the law regarding necessary and objectively reasonable force under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal regarding the costs award was also dismissed, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the plaintiffs' claim for breach of informant privilege under Rule 21.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by absolute privilege, which protects statements made in the course of judicial proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the law is unsettled and it is not plain and obvious that a claim for breach of informant privilege cannot form an exception to absolute privilege.