4 total
Mareva injunction continued for restaurant sale proceeds but expanded freezing and Norwich orders denied.
The plaintiff, an 81-year-old widow, brought a motion to continue and expand a Mareva injunction and obtain further Norwich orders against her deceased husband's former bookkeeper, who allegedly misappropriated funds.
The court continued the existing Mareva injunction freezing $185,000 related to the sale of a restaurant property, finding a strong prima facie case.
However, the court dismissed the request to expand the injunction to cover the sale of a farm property due to conflicting evidence.
The court also dismissed the request for further Norwich orders, noting the litigation was no longer at the pre-action stage, and ruled that much of the plaintiff's evidence, provided via a law clerk's affidavit, was inadmissible hearsay.
Interim Mareva injunction and Norwich order granted against former bookkeeper for alleged misappropriation of funds.
The applicant, an 81-year-old widow, brought an urgent motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order against the respondent, who had acted as a bookkeeper for the applicant's late husband.
The applicant alleged that the respondent fraudulently transferred $235,567.90 from a joint bank account to her own accounts.
The court granted an interim freezing order over the respondent's bank accounts, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and a serious risk of dissipation.
The court also granted a Norwich order requiring the bank to disclose the respondent's account information to assist in tracing the funds.
Partial acceptance of settlement offer constitutes counter-offer and cannot be enforced.
The applicant brought a motion seeking an order turning selected provisions of the respondent’s offer to settle into a court order after purporting to accept only the portions relating to property issues.
The respondent argued that the offer was a global offer and that partial acceptance constituted a counter-offer rather than a valid acceptance.
The court held that Rule 18(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules does not alter the common law principle that acceptance of an offer must be unconditional and complete.
Because the applicant attempted to accept only portions of the offer without evidence of severability, there was no valid acceptance and therefore no enforceable settlement.
The motion for judgment enforcing the purported acceptance was dismissed.
Court increases father’s access pending trial while maintaining child’s primary residence with mother.
The applicant father brought a motion seeking increased parenting time with the child pending trial.
The respondent mother opposed any change to the existing interim consent order, arguing the current arrangement should remain until trial.
The court considered whether a change in circumstances was required before varying the interim order and distinguished prior authority because the consent order was made on a without prejudice basis pending further order of the court.
While the court declined to alter the child’s primary residence or grant the full access sought, it held that increased contact with the father was in the child’s best interests.
The court therefore ordered additional alternating weekend access and summer parenting time pending trial.
