4 total
Court orders debtor to attend examination after evading enforcement proceedings.
The judgment creditor brought a motion seeking enforcement relief after obtaining judgment and being unable to collect due to the debtor’s non-cooperation.
The creditor sought an order requiring the judgment debtor to attend an examination in aid of execution and to provide consent allowing mortgagees to disclose mortgage information relating to jointly owned property subject to a writ of seizure and sale.
The court held that while it could compel attendance at an examination in aid of execution following a failure to attend a properly scheduled examination, it lacked authority to compel a debtor to provide consent for disclosure of financial information.
The court also noted that disclosure from mortgagees may be obtained through a court order under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act exemptions.
The debtor was ordered to attend an examination in aid of execution and the creditor was awarded costs.
Partial indemnity costs awarded to respondents after appellant brought an unnecessary appeal without jurisdiction.
The appellant brought an appeal under the Construction Lien Act from a Master's reasons before the report was confirmed.
The court previously found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the proper procedure was a motion to oppose confirmation under Rule 54.09.
In this endorsement on costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents for the jurisdictional issue, noting the appeal was unnecessary as the Master had advised the parties of the proper forum.
The court fixed costs at $2,500 for the first respondent and $1,500 for the second respondent.
Appeal from Master's unconfirmed report in construction lien action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed a Master's decisions interpreting Minutes of Settlement in a construction lien action regarding roof repairs.
The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 71(1) of the Construction Lien Act because the Master's report had not yet been confirmed.
In the alternative, reviewing the merits, the court found the Master correctly interpreted the settlement agreement's definition of 'Work' and made no palpable and overriding errors of fact.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's findings on lease issues and procedural rulings upheld.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a commercial lease dispute.
The appellants, who were self-represented at trial, argued that the trial judge erred in handling their last-minute attempts to allege fraud and claim special damages, and that they did not receive a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's procedural decisions were within her discretion, her findings on the lease issues were supported by the evidence, and she demonstrated admirable patience and sensitivity in conducting a fair trial.
