3 total
Applicant's pleadings struck under Family Law Rules for repeated, wilful failure to provide financial disclosure.
In a family law proceeding, the respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for his repeated failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and the payment of costs.
The court reviewed the applicant's history of non-compliance, noting multiple warnings and breaches of previous orders.
Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court found that the applicant's wilful disregard of his fundamental disclosure obligations constituted a triggering event.
Concluding that no other remedy would suffice, the court struck the applicant's pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8)(c) of the Family Law Rules and ordered the matter to proceed to an uncontested trial.
Appeal of demolition permit for former heritage properties dismissed; City acted reasonably and within statutory authority.
The self-represented applicant appealed a Make Safe Order and demolition permit issued by the City of London for properties owned by Rygar Properties, which were previously listed on the City's heritage inventory.
The applicant argued the permit violated the Planning Act and Building Code Act, and that the City committed 'demolition by neglect'.
The court dismissed the application, finding the City acted reasonably, in good faith, and within its statutory authority when issuing the orders and permits.
Costs were awarded to the respondents.
Deemed dismissal set aside after explained delay and no prejudice.
The moving parties sought to have the action declared deemed dismissed under Rule 48.15(6), to set aside two ex parte orders, and to dismiss the claim against an individual defendant.
The responding party brought a cross-motion to set aside the deemed dismissal after lengthy settlement negotiations had delayed service and counsel had overlooked the transitional dismissal regime.
Applying the Reid factors contextually, the court held the delay was adequately explained, the missed deadline was inadvertent, the motion for relief was prompt once the issue was discovered, and no significant prejudice was shown.
The deemed dismissal was set aside and service of the statement of claim was validated nunc pro tunc, but the venue transfer order was set aside and the attempt to dismiss the individual defendant's claim failed.
