R. Scocco

The plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim in a commercial lease dispute.

The moving party sought $45,000 in security.

The court found that the responding party had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award and failed to establish impecuniosity.

The court ordered the responding party to post $25,000 in security for costs, payable in two tranches, balancing the need for protection against the risk of preventing a claim from proceeding.

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 plaintiffs hired the defendant moving companies for a household move from Ontario to New Brunswick.

After loading the goods, the defendants demanded a flat rate significantly higher than the initial estimate and refused to deliver the goods until paid.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the return of their personal property.

The court found substantial grounds that the goods were unlawfully detained, noting the defendants' actions breached the Consumer Protection Act.

The motion was granted, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay $1,850 for the partial move, which was entirely set off by a $1,850 costs award against the defendants.