The appellant appealed an order declaring a Notice of Garnishment served on a law firm invalid and unenforceable.
The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in law by holding that funds in the lawyers' trust account were not subject to garnishment, as the funds were advanced to satisfy a mortgage debt and could have been withdrawn by the debtor.
However, the court upheld the motions judge's decision based on his equitable discretion, finding no error in his conclusion that the garnishment was an oppressive step in the context of the family dispute.
The appeal was dismissed.
