Akshay Sandhir

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing the action for delay and discharging certificates of pending litigation.

The underlying action involved allegations of misappropriated funds and breach of trust by the deceased plaintiff's family members.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Associate Justice's conclusions that the delay was inexcusable and that the loss of the plaintiff's capacity and subsequent death caused actual prejudice, making a fair trial impossible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The decision addresses a motion by Duaa Hadweh to vary a Mareva injunction imposed on her assets in a civil fraud action.

Ms. Hadweh sought to refinance her home to pay legal fees, access frozen accounts for living expenses, and open a new bank account for future employment income.

The court reviewed the evidence of asset dissipation, alternate sources of funds, and compliance with the injunction.

The court found that Ms. Hadweh had not demonstrated a lack of other available assets and had breached the Mareva order.

The court permitted her to open a new account for future income and allowed for some funds to be drawn from home equity for legal fees, subject to further evidence.

The appellant wife appealed several orders from a half-day trial concerning spousal support, equalization, and the matrimonial home.

The appeal raised three main arguments: error in ordering occupation rent, failure to assist the self-represented litigant, and error in valuing the respondent's Alberta pension for equalization purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's discretionary findings on occupation rent, finding no reversible error in assisting the self-represented litigant, and confirming the Alberta pension's value crystallized before marriage.

The applicants sought continuation of a Mareva injunction, a timetable for the underlying proceeding, and a contempt declaration arising from an asset disclosure order in a complex debt collection dispute tied to real estate development projects and alleged personal guarantees.

The respondents cross-moved to vacate earlier without-notice and interim injunctive orders.

The court held that the applicants failed to make the full and fair disclosure required on a without-notice injunction motion and, in any event, failed to establish the substantive requirements for Mareva relief, including a strong prima facie case against the individual respondents and a sufficient evidentiary basis for prejudgment execution.

The contempt motion was dismissed because non-compliance and wilfulness were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The earlier orders were vacated, the proceeding was converted into an action, and costs were made costs in the cause.