Scott Price

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated June 29, 2020, and August 17, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $10,000, payable jointly and severally by the moving parties.

The defendants requested an adjournment of an upcoming trial after their previous counsel was removed from the record for non-payment of a retainer.

One defendant also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring a summary judgment motion based on a limitation period defence.

The court dismissed the request for leave, noting the limitation defence had been pleaded from the outset and the matter was already set for trial.

The court also dismissed the adjournment request, drawing an adverse inference from the defendants' failure to file evidence of prejudice, and ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled.

Motion seeking approval of Minutes of Settlement under Rule 7.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a mentally incapable adult and for judgment implementing the settlement terms between her three sons.

The settlement arose from mediation resolving disputes concerning a family trust and a prior transfer of Spanish real property.

A dispute later arose regarding the wording of an acknowledgement required by the settlement, leading one party to withdraw a prior approval motion and threaten to resile from the agreement.

The court found the refusal to accept the original wording and withdrawal of the approval motion unreasonable, concluding it necessitated the moving party’s motion to finalize approval.

The settlement was approved and costs were awarded to the moving party, with part payable personally by the party whose conduct caused the additional proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction to restrain certain defendants from transferring or dissipating assets pending trial in an action alleging breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation arising from a failed financing arrangement.

The court considered the established test for Mareva injunctions, including the requirement of a strong prima facie case and the risk of dissipation of assets.

On the limited interim record, the court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a strong prima facie case at least with respect to breach of contract and an existing $80,000 judgment.

However, evidence of assets and risk of dissipation was limited.

The court granted a narrowly tailored interim interim Mareva injunction restraining dealings with specific real property owned by a corporate defendant and funds in a bank account held by an individual defendant pending a full hearing.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment and an order striking its statement of defence for failure to satisfy undertakings.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's former solicitors failed to act appropriately in its defence and failed to communicate with the appellant regarding the motion to strike.

Applying the principle that a client should not be irrevocably prejudiced by the neglect of their solicitor, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the default judgment and the order striking the statement of defence, and permitted the appellant to defend the action.