The plaintiff finance company brought a motion without notice seeking an order authorizing a bailiff to seize leased trucks from the defendant lessee following alleged payment defaults.
The court scrutinized the request under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Personal Property Security Act, and the Courts of Justice Act.
The judge held that the motion improperly sought final relief without notice, failed to comply with Rule 44 requirements for interim recovery of personal property, and relied on a proceeding commenced by action when the statute required an application.
The materials also failed to address potential third‑party interests in the collateral and raised concerns about incomplete disclosure to the court in a without‑notice motion.
The court emphasized the high threshold for ex parte relief and the duty of full and frank disclosure.
The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff commencing proper proceedings.
