Letitia Wing See Lee

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Pollak J., which dismissed an earlier order of Master Jolley.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $37,773.07.

The applicant, residing in a long-term care facility, sought equalization of family property following a divorce.

A motion was brought on his behalf to declare him a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules due to mental incapacity and to appoint his daughter as his litigation guardian.

The respondent opposed the motion, questioning the medical evidence and the daughter's suitability.

The court found the uncontested medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician sufficient to establish incapacity.

The court granted the motion, declaring the applicant a special party and appointing his daughter as litigation guardian.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision to grant and not discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against Ms. Tan's property.

The appeal grounds included alleged failure of full disclosure, misrepresentation of facts, and lack of a reasonable claim to an interest in the property by the plaintiffs.

The court, applying the standard of review for Master's decisions (palpable and overriding error for factual findings, error of law/wrong principles for discretionary decisions), found no such error.

The Master properly determined there was a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim to an interest in the property and that the plaintiffs did not fail to make full disclosure or misrepresent material facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents/plaintiffs were awarded costs.

The moving defendants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts as required by Rule 39.01(6).

The court reviewed the record and found that the plaintiffs had complied with their disclosure obligations, noting that the alleged misrepresentations were actually triable issues regarding the interpretation of agreements and personal liability.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.