COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-112
DATE: 20210603
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
JACOB McGRIMMON
Plaintiff
Thomas P. Connolly, appearing for the Plaintiff
- and -
TOM HANNIMAN and SHERRY-LYNN HANNIMAN, as ESTATE TRUSTEES/ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESATE OF BRANDON HANNIMAN, TOM HANNIMAN, SHERRY-LYN HANNIMAN, ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and TD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendants
Matthew G.T. Glass, appearing for the Defendant, TD General Insurance Company
No one appearing for the other Defendants
- and –
SHOOTERS BAR & GRILL OF CALABOGIE LTD., and ANN SENACK
Third Parties
No one appearing for the Third Parties
MOTIONS HEARD: May 26, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
JAMES J.
[1] There are two motions to be determined. Firstly, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the statement of claim. Secondly, the Defendant TD General Insurance Company ("TD Insurance") moves to strike out a portion of the Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, this party states that the declarations sought in paragraphs 1(b)(i) – (iv) are antithetical to the provisions of the Insurance Act, including subsection 258(14), and that permitting the Plaintiff to engage in any adjudication of coverage issues in the main action is premature and inappropriate.
[2] In his able submissions, counsel for TD Insurance sought to distinguish the decision of this Court in in Williams v. Pintar, 2014 ONSC 1606 and to put the comments of D. Wilson, J. in Hoang v. Vicentini, 2014 ONSC 5893 at paragraphs 24 and 31, in context.
[3] During the course of the hearing, the Court was made aware that a similar motion was recently argued before McNamara, J. and his decision was on reserve.
[4] I have now had an opportunity to consider the Reasons for Decision in that case, reported as Gagnon v. Sivasamboo et al., 2021 ONSC 3853, and I find them dispositive of the issues raised by TD Insurance on its motion in this proceeding. I adopt and rely on the comments of McNamara, J. in the Gagnon decision, with the result that the Plaintiff's motion is granted and the motion by TD Insurance is dismissed.
[5] There shall be an order granting the Plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim as proposed.
[6] There shall also be an order dismissing the Rule 21 motion brought by TD Insurance.
[7] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make brief written submissions within 30 days on a schedule agreed to by counsel, sent to Pembroke.SCJ.Courts@ontario.ca.
Mr. Justice Martin James
Released: June 3, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-112
DATE: 20210603
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
JACOB McGRIMMON
Plaintiff
- and -
TOM HANNIMAN and SHERRY-LYNN HANNIMAN, as ESTATE TRUSTEES/ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESATE OF BRANDON HANNIMAN, TOM HANNIMAN, SHERRY-LYN HANNIMAN, ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and TD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendants
- and -
SHOOTERS BAR & GRILL OF CALABOGIE LTD., and ANN SENACK
Third Parties
REASONS FOR DECISION
James J.
Released: June 3, 2021