During an urgent conference, the respondent sought an adjournment of an upcoming motion and argued that the application should be converted into an action requiring pleadings and discoveries.
The court declined to adjourn the motion, noting the respondent had previously agreed to the motion date and had failed to comply with earlier court-ordered timelines or deliver responding materials.
The court held that any request to convert the proceeding into an action could be brought by way of a motion for directions but should not delay the scheduled motion hearing.
The court also confirmed that the applicants were entitled to examine a non-party under oath in relation to the pending motion.
