3 total
Motion granted to preserve $220,000 from any future condominium sale proceeds pending opposition to report.
The moving party, a woodworking contractor, brought a motion under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 for an interim order preserving the proceeds of any sale of the responding party's residential condominium.
The moving party had previously proven its construction lien and was awarded costs and interest in a Master's report, which the responding party was moving to oppose.
The court found that Rule 45.01(1) applied because the report created a connection between the awarded costs and interest and the proceeds of the condominium's sale, and there was evidence the responding party was attempting to sell the unit without notifying his counsel.
The court ordered that $220,000 from any sale proceeds be paid into court pending the final determination of the motion opposing confirmation of the report.
Motions for trial adjournment and judicial recusal dismissed as delay tactics lacking merit.
On the first day of a trial, the self-represented defendant brought motions to adjourn the trial to retain counsel and for the Master to recuse himself due to an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Master dismissed the adjournment motion, finding the defendant's lack of counsel was a deliberate delay strategy.
The Master also dismissed the recusal motion, holding that a passing comment about the defendant travelling abroad during the COVID-19 pandemic did not demonstrate anti-Semitic or anti-elitist bias.
Defendant's counterclaim struck for deliberate failure to comply with trial directions to deliver evidence.
The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim for failing to comply with trial directions to deliver affidavits for evidence in chief.
The defendant, who was self-represented after his counsel was removed, brought a motion to adjourn the trial to retain new counsel.
The court found the defendant's non-compliance was deliberate, part of a delay strategy, and showed a profound lack of interest in the proceedings.
Applying the test for striking pleadings, the court struck the defendant's set-off and counterclaim but allowed the defence to stand so the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses.
The motion to adjourn was dismissed.