S. D’Souza

The applicant sought to enforce a July 10, 2019 order from the Supreme Court of the State of New York appointing a temporary guardian for the respondent's mother and ordering the applicant, as trustee of a spousal trust, to pay funds for her well-being and investigation of her whereabouts.

The court applied the test for recognizing foreign judgments, finding the New York court had jurisdiction and the funding order was final.

The court recognized the order regarding the funding provisions but declined to recognize the provisions granting access to medical and confidential information due to privacy concerns.

A physician brought a motion to consolidate his contribution and indemnity action against an alleged assailant with an existing medical negligence action brought against him by the injured plaintiff.

The physician argued both proceedings shared a common issue of causation and arose from the same series of occurrences, namely the stabbing and the subsequent medical treatment.

The court held that the negligence action concerned only damages arising from alleged medical malpractice, while the alleged assailant could only be liable for damages arising from the stabbing itself.

Because the claims involved different occurrences and no common causation issue regarding the damages sought, consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the underlying negligence action.

Following an earlier order setting aside a registrar’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action on terms, the court determined the costs payable for the motion.

Although the plaintiffs were granted relief reinstating the action, the court ordered them to pay the defendants’ costs due to prolonged delay and neglect in prosecuting the claim.

The defendants sought more than $8,000 in fees and disbursements.

The court found the claim reflected excessive lawyering and unreasonable time spent on a relatively straightforward motion.

Applying the partial indemnity approach and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than equal to actual legal fees, the court substantially reduced the amount payable.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order issued after the action had remained dormant for several years following discovery.

They argued they never received the status notice or dismissal notice and explained the delay by financial hardship, business failures, and personal obligations while self‑represented.

The court applied the contextual approach endorsed in appellate authority governing motions to set aside dismissals for delay, considering explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice.

Although the plaintiffs’ prolonged inactivity and failure to prosecute the action weighed heavily against them, the absence of evidence that notice of the status notice or dismissal order had been provided raised concerns of procedural fairness.

Balancing the interests of finality with the preference for adjudicating disputes on their merits, the court set aside the registrar’s dismissal order on strict terms requiring immediate procedural steps and costs payable to the defendants.