The appellants were victims of a wire fraud and sought to freeze the recipient bank account.
A case management judge ordered the parties to attend a case conference to address the freeze and the account holder's motion to release funds.
However, a different motion judge subsequently granted the account holder's motion in writing without notice to the appellants, permitting the release of $10,000 per month.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by making an order that conflicted with the prior case management direction and breached procedural fairness by refusing to reconsider the order once notified of the lack of service.
