Simenpal Kainth

The self-represented respondent brought a motion to set aside a final consent order on the basis of fraud, financial non-disclosure, and duress.

The applicant sought to dismiss the motion and prohibit the respondent from bringing further motions.

The court found no evidence of fraud, material non-disclosure, or duress, but set aside the paragraph of the final order regarding equalization because neither party had plead it.

The court dismissed the request for a parenting coordinator, ordered the parties to attend mediation intake, and prohibited the respondent from bringing further motions in the proceeding, while setting parameters for any future Motion to Change.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of a non-residential lease.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 to stay proceedings based on an arbitration clause and to strike claims against the individual defendant, Linda Ross, for interference with contractual relations and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiffs cross-moved for a discovery plan.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, interpreting the arbitration clause as applying only to rent for extended terms, not collection of unpaid rent.

The court struck the claim for interference with contractual relations against Linda Ross based on the Said v. Butt doctrine.

The court also struck the oppression remedy claim and personal liability claim against Linda Ross, finding that the pleadings did not establish a basis for piercing the corporate veil or an actionable tort beyond a breach of contract by the corporation.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for a discovery plan was granted.