P. Robson

The parties have been embroiled in complex family and civil litigation since their separation in 2014.

Following a final judgment in the family law proceeding awarding the applicant over $1.5 million, the court addressed several outstanding issues through case management.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion under Rule 59.06 to reconsider a previous order regarding bailiff fees.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, the court dismissed the respondent's remaining civil claims against the applicant and her former counsel.

The court also found that the respondent's mother, who had purchased some of the respondent's actions from his trustee in bankruptcy and held legal title to a property beneficially owned by the respondent, was bound by the court's previous factual findings and dismissed her claims.

The court ordered that if the respondent failed to pay the judgment within 45 days, the property would be seized and sold.

Finally, the court held it had jurisdiction under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to enforce outstanding costs orders made by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's actions and strike his pleadings due to his failure to pay over $150,000 in outstanding costs awards and a $10,000 fine.

The respondent argued he should not have to pay the applicant directly due to alleged fraud and claimed impecuniosity.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding no evidence of impecuniosity and holding that allegations of fraud do not excuse non-compliance with court orders.

The court gave the respondent a final 14-day period to pay the outstanding costs and fine, failing which his pleadings in all related actions would be struck.

The case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related actions.

The court ordered the sale of two vehicles held by a bailiff, with proceeds to be paid into court.

The court also set a timetable for a motion under Rule 60.12 to determine whether the respondent should be permitted to continue participating in the proceedings due to his failure to pay previous costs awards.

Other requests for relief by the respondent were deferred pending the outcome of the Rule 60.12 motion.

The applicant purchased property and obtained title insurance from the respondent.

The former owner sued the applicant to set aside the sale, and the respondent initially assumed the defence.

The applicant later lost title to the property through power of sale proceedings, prompting the respondent to deny a continuing duty to defend on the basis that the applicant no longer owned the property.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent owed a continuing duty to defend.

The court found that the underlying action included a claim for damages based on unjust enrichment, which triggered the respondent's duty to defend even though the applicant no longer owned the property.