4 total
Summary judgment granted dismissing claim for demutualization benefits as plaintiffs' policy was lawfully not renewed.
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 court dismissed the employer's motion to strike, finding the employee's right to sue for termination was preserved despite alternative administrative complaint mechanisms.
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.
Divisional Court erred by substituting penalty without reasons; matter remitted to Tribunal for penalty assessment.
The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed a Divisional Court order that vacated a Tribunal's revocation of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc.'s licence and substituted a lesser penalty with terms.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the Tribunal erred by not allowing Sussman to make penalty submissions, but found the Divisional Court erred in law by failing to provide reasons for substituting the penalty.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, remitting the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal to assess the penalty based on the original findings of conduct.
Cross-appeal dismissed; Divisional Court's interpretation of s. 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act upheld.
The appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed an order of the Divisional Court.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court's interpretation of s. 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and found no merit in the other grounds raised on the cross-appeal, including the costs order imposed by the Tribunal.
The cross-appeal was dismissed with no costs.
