Keith Landy

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision denying their request to vary a Mareva order to permit them access to the proceeds from the sale of their home to pay legal fees.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance transcending the immediate interests of the parties, nor were there conflicting decisions on the issue.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful Rule 51.06(2) motion that resulted in partial judgment, the plaintiff sought costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court considered costs arising from both the motion and the adjournment of the scheduled trial after the defendants’ counsel was granted leave to withdraw.

Because the motion did not resolve all issues in the action, the court declined to assess the effect of prior settlement offers under Rule 49.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs for the motion and for wasted trial preparation caused by the adjournment.

Pre‑judgment interest was also granted pursuant to s. 6 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure).