Gordon Wood

The applicant brought a motion for documentary disclosure and production from the respondent and several third parties in the context of an application to set aside a 2006 settlement and final order relating to support and property claims following the parties’ common‑law relationship.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to make full disclosure of assets and income at the time of settlement, including interests in Spanish real estate, stock options, and tax liabilities.

The court found the application to set aside the settlement was not frivolous but held that many of the disclosure requests were overly vague or overly broad.

Limited disclosure was ordered, including documentary production from a bank regarding severance and stock options, authorizations permitting the applicant to obtain the respondent’s Irish tax returns, and disclosure of addresses for Spanish properties.

Costs between the parties were reserved, and no costs were ordered for the bank.

The tenant moved to set aside a Notice of Abandonment and resurrect his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding non-payment of rent and unit conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no practical need to continue with two appeals, as the tenant had another pending appeal where he could raise his evidentiary concerns.

Furthermore, the tenant provided no explanation for his six-month delay in seeking to set aside the abandonment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that work performed by the respondent was referable to an oral agreement to transfer properties to him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was supported by uncontradicted evidence and there was no basis to interfere.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to amend its pleadings to add a claim for equitable subrogation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that under Rule 26.01, the amendment must be allowed unless there is non-compensable prejudice.

The court held the claim was tenable in law and permitted the amendment without prejudice to the defendants' right to plead a limitation period defence.