KC

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to disclose the identities of third parties financing their living expenses, arguing that disclosure posed a risk to the funders' personal safety.

The motion judge had failed to address this safety issue.

The respondents argued the appeal was moot because the underlying motion to vary the Mareva injunction had already been decided using a counsels' eyes-only agreement.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not moot due to the ongoing safety controversy.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the case management judge to determine the safety risk.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on issues including whether the motion judge erred by certifying liability for increased risk, causation and damages, whether a class proceeding remains the preferable procedure, and whether a family class should have been certified.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.