The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment granting an order for the immediate partition and sale of a jointly-owned property.
The appellant, who had been critically injured in a hammer attack allegedly perpetrated by the respondent, appealed the order.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to address the evidentiary significance of the appellant's affidavit detailing her severe injuries and lack of alternative housing.
The court held that this silence precluded meaningful appellate review of whether the partition and sale would cause hardship amounting to oppression.
The matter was remitted for a new hearing.
