3 total
Notice issued under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of appeal from interlocutory order discontinuing trial.
The appellant sought to appeal an order discontinuing a trial and directing that a new trial be scheduled before a different judge.
The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the litigation.
The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process for lacking jurisdiction, but provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.
Motion for vesting order dismissed as court lacked jurisdiction absent an existing payment liability order.
The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking a vesting order to transfer ownership of an inherited property into the responding party's name, arguing it was necessary to make the property available to their joint creditor.
The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Estates Administration Act because the responding party only had a beneficial interest in the residue of the estate, not a specific property interest.
Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Act because there was no existing order establishing a payment liability against the responding party.
Mid-trial motion granted to discontinue family trial and order a new trial due to newly discovered corporate interests.
In the midst of a family trial focused on financial issues, the applicant brought an emergency motion to suspend the trial to allow for forensic analysis of the respondent's assets, after discovering a previously undisclosed corporation.
The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the mid-trial motion and concluded that the trial was not ready to proceed due to the potential impact of the undisclosed corporate interests on the net family property calculation.
The court discontinued the trial, ordered a new trial before a different judge, and granted the applicant leave to bring motions for a court-appointed expert and outstanding disclosure.
