Mr. Russell

The applicant sought costs of $153,858.95 against a residents group following a settlement hearing for a subdivision development.

The applicant argued the residents group acted unreasonably by pursuing meritless planning arguments and failing to call engineering evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the residents group participated reasonably, complied with procedural orders, and advocated in good faith.

The Tribunal emphasized its cautious approach to costs against citizens to avoid a chilling effect on public participation in the planning process.

The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary issues and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased interim child and spousal support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no compelling reasons to preclude it, and severed the divorce.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the applicant to pay $5,300 in monthly child support and $14,000 in monthly spousal support based on a three-year average of his business income.

The appellant insurer sought to annul a comprehensive general liability policy issued to the respondent asbestos manufacturer, alleging the respondent failed to disclose material facts regarding the health risks of asbestos exposure (specifically, the Selikoff reports).

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the insured was not obliged to disclose these facts because the insurer was presumed to know them by virtue of their public character and notoriety.

The Court established that the standard for notoriety is that of a reasonably competent underwriter insuring similar risks in the industry, and that such an underwriter ought to have known of the serious asbestos-related health risks widely reported in North American media.