Osborne Barnwell

The parties, representing two factions of a divided church congregation, entered into a settlement agreement to divide church assets and funds.

The respondents partially performed the agreement but stopped making payments, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of a religious organization and that the settlement was unfair.

The court held that while ecclesiastical and theological disputes are non-justiciable, the enforcement of a settlement agreement concerning property and funds is a standard contractual matter within the court's jurisdiction.

The application to enforce the settlement was granted, and the cross-application challenging jurisdiction was dismissed.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged a failure to provide a timely letter of reference, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim to allege that the corporate defendant breached its policy to provide a reference.

The court allowed the amendment and dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the amended pleading sufficiently alleged a breach of the employment contract and related torts.

Application and cross‑application concerning the validity of a life insurance change‑of‑beneficiary form executed shortly before the insured’s death.

The applicant sought a declaration that the 2011 form reallocating most of the insurance proceeds to her was valid, or alternatively rectification of the form.

The court held the form was not a valid declaration under the Insurance Act because the allocation percentages were altered after signing and the applicant failed to prove the insured signed the form as altered.

The court also found numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the document, rebutting the presumption that the insured knew and approved its contents.

The applicant failed to establish knowledge and approval or that the form reflected the insured’s true testamentary intentions.

Following divided success on two summary judgment motions in a medical malpractice action, the court invited costs submissions.

The plaintiff submitted a 13-page document despite a four-page limit, prompting the court to read only the first four pages.

The court found no reason to depart from its presumptive view that costs should lie where they fall, noting that pre-motion squabbles between lawyers rarely influence costs.

No order as to costs was made.