Court File and Parties
CITATION: Atwood v. National Police Federation, 2026 ONSC 3388
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Damon Atwood, Applicant
-and-
National Police Federation, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Self-Represented Applicant Todd J. Burke and Thomas Yates for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
Costs Decision
1On May 26, 2026, the court dismissed the Damon Atwood’s application. He was putting forward a proposal to the Annual General Meeting seeking to amend the articles of incorporation of the National Police Federation (NPF) so as to entrench the independence of its Nominations and Elections Committee (“NEC”). The Court found that the NPF had lawful grounds to refuse a proposal advanced as a special resolution.
2The court also found that the proposal was properly rejected because it is illegal, in that it seeks to restrict the powers of the Board of Directors (Board) absent a unanimous member agreement (“UMA”), as required by s. 170 of the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, S.C. 2009 c. 23 (Act).
3The court found that the Applicant’s proposal seeks to remove core fiduciary responsibilities of the Board as required under the Act.
4The NPF is requesting costs on a substantial basis in the amount of $32,779.56 based on the complexity of the matter and its importance to the NPF in maintaining its corporate governance. Counsel for NPF has incurred approximately the same number of hours as the Applicant, namely 65.5 hours.
5The Applicant submits that the NPF was not completely successful as the court did not accept its submission that the Applicant was motivated by personal grievance. In addition, the Applicant is seeking his own costs on a partial indemnity basis or alternatively, that the court order that each party bear their own costs. If the court is inclined to order costs, the court should consider that this matter raised issues of access to justice and novel point of law.
Discussion
6For the reasons that follow, the court orders costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,000.
7The NPF was successful and presumptively entitled to costs. However, this is not a case to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
8The Applicant did not bring this application in bad faith as he genuinely believed that, on his reading of the Act, the articles can be amended by way of a special resolution. He and others had numerous issues in the manner that the Board was conducting the affairs of the NPF.
9Also, there is a dearth of jurisprudence on the interpretation of the Act, although legal scholars have written on the Board’s core responsibilities and management of the not-for-profit corporation.
10The NPF bill of costs indicates that the NPF incurred over $42,469.73 which involved work mostly completed by the junior counsel. I note that these legal costs are being borne by its members through its member dues.
11I find that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity scale, based on what a losing party might reasonably anticipate having to pay. I fix the costs at $20,000 on a partial indemnity scale.
Justice A. Doyle
Date: June 8, 2026
CITATION: Atwood v. National Police Federation, 2026 ONSC 3388
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-103356
DATE: 2026/06/08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Damon Atwood, Applicant
-and-
National Police Federation, Respondent
COUNSEL: Self-Represented Applicant Todd J. Burke and Thomas Yates for the Respondent
COSTS DECISION
DOYLE J.
Released: June 8, 2026