Ronald Segal

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 Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(3)(a) or (d), arguing lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a former CSIS employee, opposed, relying on section 236(3) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which allows employees to dispute termination not related to discipline or misconduct.

The court found that the "may" in CSISA section 41 regarding SIRC complaints was permissive, not mandatory, and that PSLRA section 236(3) preserves a common law right of action for performance-based terminations.

Given the high burden on the moving party under Rule 21, the motion to dismiss was denied.