3 total
Motion for production of Schedule A documents dismissed as premature and tactically driven.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to provide copies of the documents listed in Schedule A of their Affidavit of Documents.
The court noted that the moving party's counsel had prematurely demanded the documents immediately upon receiving the Affidavit of Documents, contrary to good practice.
The court dismissed the motion, observing that it appeared to be a tactic to gain more time to deliver a further affidavit, and extended the timeline for the delivery of that affidavit.
Motion for partition and sale of family home dismissed due to hardship to children.
The respondent, Trevor Shaw, brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules for the sale of a jointly owned family home.
The applicant, Khim Kaing, opposed the sale, arguing it would cause significant hardship to her and their three young children.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that a forced sale would be oppressive due to the severe hardship it would impose on the applicant and the children, considering the children's best interests and the applicant's inability to secure suitable alternative accommodation while unemployed and attending school.
Wage garnishment does not preclude a judgment creditor from conducting an examination of debtor.
The defendant, Alain Lemay, brought a motion seeking to purge a contempt finding made against him by the Small Claims Court and arguing that garnishment proceedings precluded the plaintiff, Sebastien Garnier, from conducting an examination of debtor (EOD).
Garnier brought a cross-motion seeking to proceed with an EOD and for further contempt findings.
The Superior Court of Justice confirmed the Small Claims Court Deputy Judge's jurisdiction to make contempt findings and ruled that garnishment does not prevent a judgment creditor from pursuing an EOD.
Lemay's motion was dismissed, and Garnier was permitted to proceed with EODs.
Other contempt matters and a claim for compensation were adjourned for future determination, and terms were set for Lemay to advance or abandon his Divisional Court appeal motion.
