Harris v. Stennett, 2025 ONSC 5111

On a refusals motion after a statutory third party discovery, the Court compelled The Personal Insurance Company to answer questions and produce documents explaining its denial of coverage. Although coverage is distinct from liability, Justice De Sa held that Rule 31.06(4)–(5) entitles plaintiffs to know the availability of insurance and the “conditions affecting its availability,” which includes the factual basis for an off-coverage position.

The Court also confirmed that plaintiffs (and OPCF 44R insurers) can obtain particulars and underlying facts; privileged legal advice remains protected, but relevant non-privileged facts must be disclosed. Given the practical stakes (limits potentially reduced from $1,000,000 to $200,000), the Court ordered answers to undertakings/refusals within 30 days, permitted follow-up discovery in writing, and awarded $5,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

De Brito v. Demeester, 2019 ONSC 6253

Two plaintiffs died in a motor vehicle accident wherein the defendant driver intentionally drove into a river. The third plaintiff survived with injuries, and the fourth plaintiff was the mother of the deceased plaintiffs. The father of the deceaseds commenced a separate action for damages. Aviva insured the defendant driver at the material time and added itself as a statutory third party to the action. It was agreed that the $200,000 limit would be split between the two estates and the surviving plaintiff. The mother of the deceaseds claimed against her OPCF-44 carrier, State Farm. Aviva was the OPCF-44 carrier for the surviving plaintiff. State Farm resolved the claim for $700,000 plus costs of $100,000 and disbursements of $27,372.65. Aviva’s $200,000 was split 52.5% to the mother and estates; 30% to the surviving plaintiff’ and 17.5% to the father of the deceaseds. At no time did Aviva pay its $200,000 into court. State Farm sought an order compelling Aviva to pay 50% of the costs agreed to in the settlement. Aviva argued that because it only faced $200,000 liability limits, it should not be responsible for costs paid by State Farm. Justice King disagreed and ordered Aviva to pay 50% of the costs, reasoning that Aviva still had an interest in the claim because the allocation of its $200,000 affected its exposure as the OPCF-44 carrier for the surviving plaintiff. Justice King noted that had Aviva paid the $200,000 into court, it would not have had to contribute to the costs settlement.