Natalie M. Leon

The appellant, a member of a not-for-profit corporation, challenged a bylaw that rendered members involved in litigation with the Board ineligible for nomination, election, or appointment to the Board.

The appellant had unsuccessfully campaigned for election in 2013 and subsequently engaged in litigation with the respondent.

The application judge dismissed the application under section 253 of the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act, finding that the Limitations Act, 2002 applied and that the application was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's procedural approach and determining that the application was properly time-barred.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the successful respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $16,009.85.

The court considered the urgency of the application, the service of a Notice of Constitutional Question, and the principles of fair and reasonable costs.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $13,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a member of the respondent not-for-profit corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy under the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporation Act, challenging by-laws that prevented him from running for the board of directors.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application as statute-barred under the provincial Limitations Act.

The applicant argued that the doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity prevented the provincial limitation period from applying to a federal corporate statute.

The court rejected the constitutional argument, finding the Limitations Act did not impair any core federal competence.

The court further held that the applicant had discovered the material facts of his claim more than two years prior to commencing the application.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, having been entirely successful on a motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $14,338.80.

The defendants argued costs should be in the cause or parties should bear their own costs.

The court rejected the defendants' position, finding the plaintiff was the clear winner.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57.01, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,400.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable forthwith.

The defendant fuel oil distributor was sued after a fuel oil tank it sold leaked, causing property damage.

The defendant brought a third-party action against its insurers seeking a declaration of a duty to defend.

One insurer argued the claim was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period incorporated from statutory fire conditions.

The court held that the fire statutory conditions could not be applied to third-party liability coverage without anomalous consequences, meaning the general two-year statutory limitation period applied and the claim was not barred.

The court found the first insurer had a duty to defend as there was a mere possibility the damage occurred during its policy period.

However, the court dismissed the claims against the other insurers, finding that pollution exclusions and specific policy definitions precluded coverage.