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.
