The plaintiffs sought to consolidate a 2023 action with a related 2021 action involving overlapping parties and issues arising from an “Estate Freeze” transaction.
The court found that both actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same series of transactions, and that consolidation (or hearing the actions together) would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, inconsistent findings, and unnecessary costs.
The court ordered the actions to be heard together or one after the other, subject to the trial judge’s directions, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.
