Christopher Matthews

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $144,054.57 following a successful application.

The applicants argued for no costs, asserting the matter was a case of first impression, or alternatively $30,000.

The court held that costs should follow the cause because the parties were advancing private financial interests rather than a public interest.

Applying the Boucher principles, the court found the respondent's time spent was excessive compared to the applicants' and reduced the requested fees by approximately 40 percent, fixing costs at $75,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs sued their former insurer, Economical, and a related foundation, claiming entitlement to demutualization benefits after Economical declined to renew their home insurance policy due to their claims history.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were not eligible policyholders on the crystallization date for demutualization benefits.

The court also held that Economical had no duty to warn the plaintiffs about its internal underwriting guidelines or to renew the policy, and that the claim was statute-barred as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The applicants sought a declaration that an option in a 1997 mining rights option agreement was void under the 21-year perpetuity period in s. 13(3) of the Perpetuities Act.

The court held, in a case of first impression, that the option concerned an incorporeal interest akin to a profit à prendre and therefore fell within s. 14, which provides a 40-year vesting period for easements, profits à prendre, and similar interests.

Applying a textual, contextual, purposive, and original-meaning interpretation, the court concluded that s. 13(3) addressed options relating to corporeal hereditaments, while s. 14 addressed incorporeal hereditament interests.

Because the option was created in 1997, it remained presumptively valid and the application was dismissed.

The court was asked for assistance in settling the terms of an order granting intervener status, specifically regarding costs.

The respondents submitted a draft order, agreed to by most parties, stating that interveners would not be entitled to seek costs or be liable for costs of the appeals.

As no other parties proposed different terms, the court approved the draft order in accordance with its usual practice.

Several First Nations and a mining company brought motions to intervene in an appeal concerning Aboriginal harvesting rights under Treaty 3 and Ontario's jurisdiction to grant logging permits.

The court granted friend of the court status to Grand Council of Treaty 3, Lac Seul First Nation, Big Grassy First Nation, and Treaty 6 First Nations, finding their perspectives would assist the court.

The court granted party status to Goldcorp Inc. and Wabauskang First Nation, finding they had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by the broad declaration under appeal.

The interveners were ordered to accept the record as it is and not expand the issues.