KOSTIC v AIG INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

The Applicant sought the consolidation of two Actions, pursuant to Rule 3.72, as part of a larger set of Actions that were being managed by Justice Marion (the “Case Managed Actions”). The Applicant had previously advised the Court of their intention to seek consolidation of the Case Managed Actions and was provided with direction from the Court as to the required process when seeking such relief.

Specifically, on March 10, 2025, the Applicant was directed to advise the parties of the Case Managed Actions of the particulars of the relief she sought, and to do so within a week of that date. The Applicant failed to advise the other parties as directed. On May 9, 2025, the Applicant advised that they still intended to seek the consolidation of the Case Managed Actions, and was directed to provide the materials for their request to all other parties by August 29, 2025. The Applicant did not provide their materials within the timeframe directed by the Court. On September 8, 2025, the Court directed that the Applicant was to provide the materials for their sought relief by no later than September 19, 2025, failing which the Applicant would be deemed to be no longer seeking that relief.

The Applicant provided materials to the Court within the timeframe directed. However, those materials were non-compliant with the Rules and the directions of the Court. Justice Marion then directed that the Applicant provide new materials, and provided procedural directions with respect to those materials. Once again, the Applicant provided materials that were non-compliant with the Court’s direction.

The Court considered whether the Application ought to be dismissed as a result of the repeated non-compliance with the Court’s directions. Justice Marion considered Rule 1.2 and the general goal of the Courts to resolve matters as quickly and efficiently as possible. In furtherance of these purposes, the Court is provided with significant discretion to provide directions and impose sanctions as needed to ensure that matters advance at a reasonable rate.

The Court noted that, in failing to abide by the Court’s repeated procedural directives, the Applicant was acting contrary to the very purpose of the Rules. As such, the Court dismissed the Application and the Case Managed Actions were not consolidated.

The Respondents submitted that, in light of the Applicant’s repeated procedural non-compliance, costs alone would be an insufficient remedy. To address this, the Court raised the possibility of imposing an additional penalty on the Applicant, pursuant to Rule 10.49, and provided the parties the opportunity to make submissions on that issue at a later date.