The respondent moved by a Rule 14B motion to continue previously heard substantive motions, either by virtual conference or in-person.
The applicant opposed a virtual hearing, citing potential prejudice.
The court noted that recent procedural changes eliminated the requirement for urgency or pressing matters for motions.
The substantive issues involved the enforceability of an alleged agreement and the effect of escrow provisions related to the sale of a commercial property.
Recognizing the complexities and the court's rescheduling challenges due to COVID-19, the court declined to immediately set a hearing mode or date.
Instead, it ordered a further case conference before another Justice to review the parties' positions on the substantive issues and the preferred mode of hearing (in-person vs. virtual), before rescheduling the motions.
