Justine Ann Dalton

The plaintiff, Denise Asselin-Kowalsky, brought a motion for an interlocutory worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants, Mark Kowalsky and Catherine Kowalsky, to prevent them from dissipating assets.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure, established a strong prima facie case, demonstrated that the defendants possessed assets within the jurisdiction, and showed a real risk of those assets being removed or disposed of.

The plaintiff also provided an undertaking as to damages.

The court also addressed costs, finding the plaintiff entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, Ampscon Inc., moved to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing its action for delay under Rules 48.14(10) and 37.14.

The defendant, Melloul-Blamey Construction Inc., opposed, arguing insufficient explanation for delay, lack of promptness, and presumed prejudice.

The court, applying principles from Carioca and Fuller, emphasized that cases should be decided on their merits and that a "reasonable" standard applies to counsel's conduct.

It found the five-year delay, with periods of dormancy accepted by both parties, was not inherently prejudicial.

The plaintiff's financial difficulties and a solicitor's lien were deemed reasonable explanations for recent delays.

The court dismissed the defendant's claims of prejudice, noting that any lack of evidence from the plaintiff would benefit the defendant.

The Registrar's Order was set aside, and the motion was granted.

The appellant appealed from orders made over ten years prior determining equalization, child support, and spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The appellant had failed to appear at trial in 2007 and at a subsequent motion to set aside the trial order in 2008.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's serious mental health issues, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which rendered her incapable of attending the proceedings.

The court found that the appellant's absence was excused and that procedural fairness required setting aside the trial and motion orders.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the issues of equalization and support, set aside a garnishment order, and required the respondent to return garnished funds with interest.