A. Jiwa

The plaintiff estate administrator brought an action alleging that the deceased's daughter, acting as power of attorney, fraudulently transferred the deceased's farm properties to another daughter and son-in-law in 1997.

The court found no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, concluding that the deceased had authorized the transfers.

The court also held that any claim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants' counterclaim regarding the severance of a joint tenancy was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to consolidate four separate actions arising from a franchise dispute, including claims against the franchisor, accountants, and lawyers.

All parties consented except for one defendant accountant.

The court applied Rule 6.01 and found that the actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same series of transactions, specifically the plaintiffs' reliance on allegedly inaccurate financial statements.

The court granted the motion to consolidate the actions and ordered that a related third-party claim be heard at the same time or immediately after the consolidated action.

In a high-conflict bifurcated trial regarding parenting issues, the court found that the applicant mother had engaged in alienating behaviour that severely damaged the children's relationship with the respondent father.

However, due to the passage of time, the children's entrenched views, and the father's failure to cooperate with court-ordered reunification therapy, the court concluded that restoring the relationship was practically impossible.

The mother was granted sole parenting time and decision-making authority, with the father entitled to parenting time only as the children may wish.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding with a bifurcated trial, the court issued a directions ruling after significant delays by both parties.

The parenting trial had concluded its evidentiary phase but was paused for reunification therapy that never occurred, while the financial trial was repeatedly delayed due to disclosure disputes and lack of preparation.

The court directed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to update its clinical investigation regarding the children.

For the financial issues, the court ordered the parties to exchange updated financial statements and attend a peremptory settlement conference to ensure the matter becomes trial-ready.

The moving defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, a corporation and an individual, under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The court found the defendants failed to meet their initial onus regarding the individual plaintiff.

For the corporate plaintiff, while impecuniosity was established, the court declined to order security for costs, finding it would be unjust given the merits of the plaintiff's claim, the defendants' alleged role in causing the impecuniosity, and the delay in bringing the motion.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The estate trustee brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw admissions and amend a statement of claim relating to ownership of corporate shares and real property, and to consolidate three related proceedings.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the jurisprudence governing withdrawal of admissions under Rule 51.05.

It held that the moving party failed to establish a reasonable explanation for the change in position and failed to demonstrate absence of prejudice, particularly given a prior consent order directing sale of the property based on joint ownership.

The proposed amendments concerning the property were also found to constitute an abuse of process, and consolidation was refused because it would conflict with the existing reference process and increase procedural complexity.