The respondents brought a motion to vary a consent order registered on title to land, seeking to limit its application to only lots relevant to the dispute.
The applicants opposed, citing the respondents' breaches of obligations under the consent order and minutes of settlement, and concerns about related companies.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents did not meet the high threshold to vary a consent order, as the "new facts" (PIN assignments) were foreseeable, and the respondents had demonstrated a disregard for their obligations, justifying the applicants' concerns about security.
