Ontario court upholds insurer’s motion to try tort and AB actions related to the same vehicle accident together

The Ontario Superior Court has upheld an insurer’s request to have a plaintiff’s tort action and accident benefits action – both of which relate to injuries allegedly sustained in a single motor vehicle accident – tried together.
The plaintiff appealed the ruling of a motions judge to try the two actions together, arguing that the tort action arises out of the motor vehicle accident, whereas the accident benefits action arises out of an alleged breach of contract by the insurer providing accident benefits.
“While that is a kind of distinction, it is one without a great deal of meaningful difference, in my opinion,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Dale Parayeski wrote in Reeve v. Pembridge Insurance Company. “The alleged injuries are at the root of both claims. A judge sitting alone, or a properly instructed jury, is quite capable of dealing with both negligence and contract issues.”
As for the fact that the two actions were at different stages of proceedings, this does not “militate, in my view, in favour of keeping them separate,” the judge wrote.
The plaintiff noted that Rule 62.02 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure says leave to appeal a decision on trying two actions together can be granted when there is “a conflicting decision by another or court in Ontario or elsewhere on the matter involved…”
But Parayeski observed that judges have considerable discretion under the rules on whether or not to tie actions together in one trial. “That different judges have exercised the broad discretion given to them and come to different conclusions does not necessarily mean that there are ‘conflicting’ decisions,” he wrote. “Even if I am wrong in this regard, I am not persuaded that it is desirable to ask the Divisional Court to rule upon the underlying issue of trials together in similar cases.”
The full decision is available at: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc5471/2011onsc5471.html