3 total
The court granted the judgment creditors' motion for non-party examinations, document production, and garnishment to enforce unpaid judgments.
The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant Harold Spring, brought a motion seeking an order for examination in aid of execution of non-parties and production of documents from non-parties under Rule 60.18(6), and leave to issue a notice of garnishment more than six years after judgment under Rule 60.08(2).
The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated difficulty in enforcing the judgments and had exhausted available means, and that the non-parties likely possessed relevant information.
The court also found that the plaintiffs had not waived their rights regarding garnishment despite the delay, and that the garnishee might be indebted to the defendant.
Motion granted to examine non-party spouse and compel document production in aid of execution.
The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant for over $4 million arising from fraudulent schemes, brought a motion for orders under Rule 60.18(6) to examine the defendant's spouse and compel document production from non-party banks and accountants.
The plaintiffs also sought leave under Rule 60.08(2) to issue a notice of garnishment more than six years after the judgment.
The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had faced difficulty enforcing the judgment due to the defendant's refusals and non-compliance with previous orders, and that the non-parties likely possessed relevant information regarding the defendant's assets and income.
The court granted the defendant leave to amend her pleadings to add a claim for unpaid wages, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.
The defendant sought leave to amend pleadings to introduce new claims, including for unpaid wages, and to particularize existing claims, despite the advanced stage of litigation.
The plaintiff opposed, citing abuse of process, potential delay, and limitation period issues for the new claims.
The court granted leave, noting that the core claim for statutory entitlements had been present since the initial pleadings and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.
The decision allowed the plaintiff to plead limitation periods as a defence and proposed terms, including the potential severance of the counterclaim, to mitigate trial delays.
