Eric Anthony Clear Williams

The interveners appealed a trial judgment concerning a dispute over the assets of The Holy Virgin Church.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that proposed by-law amendments were governed by the approval requirements in the Normal Parish By-laws, noting that the dispute was fundamentally religious and outside the court's purview.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge improperly exercised his discretion under s. 106 of the Canada Corporations Act to order a meeting, as the power struggle between factions did not constitute extraordinary circumstances making a meeting impracticable.

The defendants, a church parish and a seniors' residence, sought a stay of execution of a trial judgment that handed control of the parish to the plaintiff Diocese after a failed attempt by the parish to secede.

Following the judgment, the Diocese took control and filed a notice of abandonment of the appeal.

The moving party sought to strike the abandonment and stay the judgment to use parish funds for the appeal.

The court dismissed the stay motion and allowed the notice of abandonment to stand, noting that the true protagonists (the seceding individuals) should seek intervenor status to pursue the appeal at their own expense rather than using parish funds.

The appellants challenged the trial judge’s calculation of business interruption losses under an insurance policy following a fire.

The court held that monthly mortgage interest payments were fixed obligations that necessarily continued during the interruption and were not deductible as non-continuing expenses from gross earnings.

It also rejected the argument that payment of the mortgages from fire insurance proceeds created double recovery.

The appeal was dismissed except for a conceded reduction of the judgment by the $5,000 policy deductible.

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their claim for consequential and punitive damages arising from an insurer's delay in paying fire insurance proceeds to mortgagees after hotel fire losses.

The court held that the insurer's duty of good faith requires prompt and fair handling of claims, but rejected the argument that Statutory Condition 12 of the Insurance Act imposes an absolute 60-day payment obligation giving rise to consequential damages whenever a claim ultimately succeeds.

Although the court found a limited breach of good faith in failing to pay at least 50 percent of the amount claimed once the insurer relied only on a co-insurance position, the appellants failed to prove any resulting loss beyond interest already paid.

Punitive damages were also unavailable because no compensable damage flowed from the bad faith breach and the conduct was not sufficiently harsh or malicious.