Page: 42 [108] There is no maintenance if the alleged maintainer had a legitimate motive and was not acting maliciously: Adi v Datta, 2011 ONSC 2496 at para 54. The respondents allege that the Party of Canada and the Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. [109] It appears from the record, including certain of the exhibits attached to the Henein affidavit, that throughout its existence, the Council has been a consistent critic of government actions whatever party was in office. I was taken to several examples where the Council had unkind things to say about the former Liberal Government. I was not therefore, convinced that the Council’s motivations in indemnifying the applicants against costs in this case were driven by a particular animus against the current Prime Minister and his party, as opposed to the broader public interest in clean elections. [110] Even if the Council’s motives in supporting the applications were politically partisan they would not be grounds for dismissal of these applications. At best, while I consider it doubtful, the allegations might support an independent cause of action against the Council by the respondent MPs: Kroeker v Harkema Express Lines Ltd (1973), 2 OR (2d) 210 (H Ct J) at para 5, citing Skelton v Baxter, [1916] 1 KB 321 at p 326 (CA). They do not constitute eligible grounds under s 531(1) of the Act (“vexatious, frivolous, or not made in good faith”) which refer to the motives of the applicants themselves. Their motives have not been impugned in these proceedings. Therefore, even if the conduct of the Council was seen to be “officious intermeddling” to the degree that it may be actionable, the Court would have no jurisdic tion to dismiss these applications. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) Council’s motive in providing financial assistance to the applicants is to attack the Conservative