Background:

• The appellants are gynecologic oncologists involved in academic and clinical activities.
• They were funded under the AHSC AFP Template Funding Agreement, involving multiple parties including the Ontario government and Western University.
• AMOSO, although not a party to the Agreement, distributes funds based on decisions made by its Governing Committee.
• On April 1, 2015, a new funding plan, the POAFP, led to a reevaluation of fund allocation.
• AMOSO decided in 2018 to cease funding the appellants, effective March 31, 2019.

Appellants' Claims:

• Argued AMOSO’s decision breached the Agreement.
• Sought judicial review of AMOSO’s decision and a declaration that they were entitled to the funds.

Lower Court Decision:

• Application dismissed.
• Found appellants had no contractual rights under the Agreement and AMOSO followed due process and natural justice principles.

Appeal Issues:

1. Did the application judge err in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn?
2. Did the judge err in finding the appellants were not intended beneficiaries of the Agreement?
3. Does the court have jurisdiction to review AMOSO’s decision?

Court of Appeal Analysis:

• Browne v. Dunn: The rule was inapplicable as the appellants' evidence was not contradicted.
• Privity of Contract: Affirmed that the appellants, not being parties to the Agreement, could not claim its benefits.
• Review of AMOSO’s Decision: Limited to ensuring adherence to internal rules and principles of natural justice, which AMOSO exceeded.

Conclusion:

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of $30,000 awarded to the respondent.

Key Legal Points:

• Privity of contract and exceptions under the "principled approach".
• Judicial review scope for decisions by unincorporated associations.
• Applicability of Browne v. Dunn in evidentiary disputes.