ODC 2015

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeals Tribunal that ordered the re-registration of the respondent as a real estate salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had initially refused the application based on the respondent's history of financial and legal problems.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal reasonably considered the whole of the respondent's conduct, including recent evidence that he was turning his life around, and appropriately imposed conditions to protect the public.

Following an appeal, the defendant sought costs and submitted a bill of costs for $28,908.49, but indicated a willingness to accept $18,000.

The plaintiffs did not contest entitlement but argued the appropriate amount was $15,000.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not overly complex and agreed with the plaintiffs' submission, fixing the costs of the appeal at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The respondent, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, sought leave to appeal an order continuing an ex parte Mareva injunction obtained by Stans Energy Corp. The moving party argued that Stans Energy Corp. failed to disclose material information, specifically an English translation of a foreign court decision questioning the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal that issued the underlying award.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the continuation of the injunction, finding conflicting decisions on the test for materiality of non-disclosure on ex parte motions and determining that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

Leave to appeal the specific terms requiring a third party to hold dividends in trust was refused.

The 15-year-old appellant commenced an application for child support against her father.

The motion judge ordered that the appellant must be represented by a litigation guardian, relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, finding that the Family Law Rules provide a complete code for the participation of children in family law proceedings.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules, a capable minor who is a party to a child support proceeding is a 'special party' who may be represented by a lawyer without the need for a litigation guardian.