5 total
The court ordered further discovery answers and mortgage tracing but denied a sale proceeds tracing order and leave to strike the defence.
This decision addresses ongoing procedural disputes in a long-standing action, primarily concerning discovery obligations, tracing orders, and a motion for leave to strike a statement of defence.
The court ordered the defendants to provide further clarification and information, including affidavits, regarding specific written questions and the tracing of funds from second and third mortgages.
However, the plaintiffs' requests for a tracing order concerning the property's sale proceeds and leave to bring a motion to strike the statement of defence were denied.
The court emphasized the need to move the matter towards mediation and trial, noting that discovery was largely complete.
Master's refusal to set aside noting in default overturned for failing to consider prejudice.
The defendants appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a noting in default in an action for unpaid architectural services.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in principle by focusing solely on the defendants' delay without considering the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff and the general policy favouring the resolution of disputes on their merits.
The noting in default was set aside subject to a strict timetable for the remainder of the proceeding, with no costs awarded.
Appeal from consent judgment quashed for failing to bring a proper motion for leave.
The moving party brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from a judgment implementing a consent to judgment.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, noting that under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a consent order requires leave.
The appellants had improperly sought leave within their Notice of Appeal rather than bringing a motion in writing as required by Rule 61.03.1.
The appeal was quashed without prejudice to the appellants bringing a proper motion for leave to appeal.
Appeal of solicitor's account assessment dismissed; retainer agreement found not to be a contingency fee agreement.
The appellant client appealed the confirmation of an assessment of a solicitor's account, arguing the retainer agreement was an invalid contingency fee agreement under the Solicitors Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement was not a contingency fee agreement, the Act did not apply retrospectively, and the appellant had already received an assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the account.
Leave to appeal granted to uninsured defendant challenging joint and several liability for insurer's costs.
The moving party, an uninsured motorist, sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a trial judge's costs order.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action due to exaggerated claims, the trial judge ordered the moving party to be jointly and severally liable for the responding insurer's costs.
The moving party argued that as a successful party against the plaintiffs, he should not be liable for costs, and questioned whether the insurer had an independent right to claim costs against him under section 265 of the Insurance Act.
The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal, finding sufficient uncertainty in the law regarding the intersection of the insurer's common law rights and the statutory subrogation scheme.
