Andrew Rogerson

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

During the hearing, the defendants raised unpleaded legal issues in their factum, which was served late.

The plaintiff sought to file a supplementary book of authorities to address these new issues, providing it to the defendants at the commencement of the motion.

The court accepted the plaintiff's supplementary book of authorities and heard submissions from both parties.

To ensure fairness, the defendants were granted leave to file written submissions on the cases in the supplementary book within ten days, with the plaintiff allowed a further ten days for reply submissions, both limited to five pages.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to bring a summary judgment motion and to amend their statement of defence to add a limitations defence.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of defence, conditional on the defendants paying $1500 to the plaintiff for associated costs.

However, the court denied leave to bring a summary judgment motion, emphasizing the plaintiff's right to a jury trial and the principles of proportionality and access to justice, particularly given the plaintiff's unique circumstances and the imminent trial date.

The court found that allowing a summary judgment motion would be unjust and unfair, potentially jeopardizing the scheduled jury trial.

The respondent husband moved to stay a divorce proceeding and set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant spouse had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the required one‑year period preceding the application and had instead been living with the family in China.

The court also concluded there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario sufficient to ground corollary relief under the Family Law Act.

In related proceedings concerning the parties’ children, the court declined to order their return to China despite concerns regarding their removal, emphasizing the need for a full evidentiary record before determining custody issues.