R. Klotz

During case management conferences, the court addressed scheduling issues in a civil action where the anticipated trial length had increased from four days to eight to ten days.

The previously scheduled trial date was vacated as it could no longer accommodate the expanded timeframe.

The matter was directed to be placed on the January 2015 blitz trial list.

The court also addressed a submission that the trial had been marked peremptory to the plaintiff but noted no such order appeared on the record and invited counsel to bring any such order forward.

Counsel were directed to deliver an amended timetable reflecting the parties’ agreement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendant as the estate trustee of her late husband's estate.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached his fiduciary duties, ignored preservation orders, and deliberately prejudiced her family law and trust claims by liquidating estate assets.

Although the court found sufficient facts to justify removal, it declined to exercise its discretion to do so because all estate assets had already been sold, the estate had no money to pay a new trustee, and replacing the trustee would delay the impending trial where the defendant's actions would be scrutinized.

The judgment debtors moved under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay enforcement of a judgment and the scheduled sheriff’s auction of a residential property pursuant to a writ of seizure and sale.

They argued equitable considerations, including a potential future claim for overpayments under earlier share purchase agreements that might support a set‑off against the judgment.

The court held that a stay of execution of a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy exercised only in rare circumstances where enforcement would be oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The proposed claim was speculative, likely statute‑barred, unrelated to the subject matter of the judgment, and raised only as a last‑minute attempt to delay enforcement.

The court concluded that enforcement was not oppressive and that a stay would instead cause injustice to the judgment creditors.