Zoe Aranha

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a cargo-damage claim arising from an international shipment of a container holding vehicles and personal items.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the material facts were largely undisputed and the dispositive question was the applicable limitation period.

Applying the contractual terms, the bill of lading, and the Marine Liability Act incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules, the court concluded that a one-year limitation period governed the action rather than the provincial two-year limitation period.

The action, commenced more than one year after delivery or the date the goods should have been delivered, was therefore statute-barred.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim was granted, and the carrier's abandoned counterclaim was dismissed.

This motion addressed whether a main action and a third-party action, stemming from a property dispute involving an encroaching structure, should be heard concurrently or sequentially.

The Plaintiffs sought a combined hearing, while the Defendants and Third Parties preferred separate proceedings.

The court, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness, determined that the intertwined factual and legal issues, particularly concerning the appropriate equitable remedy for the admitted trespass and the allocation of financial responsibility among all parties, necessitated a single, consolidated trial.

The motion for concurrent hearings was granted to avoid multiplicity of actions and the risk of inconsistent findings.

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.