Rule Details
OLCHOWY v ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Rules Discussed
- Rule 3.68 Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
- Rule 3.72 Consolidation or separation of claims and actions
- Rule 7.1 Application to resolve particular questions or issues
Case Summary
The Parties agreed that two related Actions should be consolidated pursuant to Rule 3.72 and to have some issues determined in advance of Trial pursuant to Rule 7.1. The issues to be determined in advance of the Trial related to the proper interpretation of two separate insurance contracts. The Defendant, ING Insurance Company of Canada, applied pursuant to Rule 3.68(4) to strike out sections of an Affidavit on the basis that it contained inadmissible parole evidence. Strekaf J. agreed that the information constituted “inadmissible extrinsic evidence” which was not relevant to the issues on the Application. While Rule 3.68(4) would permit this evidence to be struck out, Strekaf J. decided that it was sufficient to find that the evidence would be disregarded.