B. Phillips

The applicants brought a motion for leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a strip of municipal land that the respondent City declared surplus and sold to the respondent purchaser.

The applicants had commenced an application for judicial review to quash the by-law authorizing the sale.

The applicants conceded they had no claim to an interest in the land but argued equity demanded the status quo be maintained.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act, a reasonable claim to an interest in land is an indispensable threshold requirement for a CPL, and the court cannot expand the legislative intention to grant a CPL where no interest in land is claimed.

The parties have been embroiled in complex family and civil litigation since their separation in 2014.

Following a final judgment in the family law proceeding awarding the applicant over $1.5 million, the court addressed several outstanding issues through case management.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion under Rule 59.06 to reconsider a previous order regarding bailiff fees.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, the court dismissed the respondent's remaining civil claims against the applicant and her former counsel.

The court also found that the respondent's mother, who had purchased some of the respondent's actions from his trustee in bankruptcy and held legal title to a property beneficially owned by the respondent, was bound by the court's previous factual findings and dismissed her claims.

The court ordered that if the respondent failed to pay the judgment within 45 days, the property would be seized and sold.

Finally, the court held it had jurisdiction under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to enforce outstanding costs orders made by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant lawyer brought an application seeking a declaration of coverage under a professional liability policy after being sued by a former client.

At a case conference, the court granted a sealing order on consent, noting that the insurer's position in the coverage dispute could affect the applicant's defence in the underlying action.

The court also established a timetable for the application and scheduled a one-day hearing.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence, including video recordings, that the appellants were personally served and consciously decided to ignore the process.

The Court noted that a conscious decision not to participate bars consideration of a defence on the merits.