3 total
Interim stay of immigration release order granted pending a full stay motion.
The Minister sought an interim stay of an Immigration Division order releasing the respondent from immigration detention pending a determination of a motion for a stay.
The respondent had a history of non-compliance with release conditions.
Applying the Toth test, the Court found there was a serious issue regarding the reasonableness of the release plan, which relied on a third party that had not appeared.
The Court concluded irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favored the Minister and granted a short interim stay to allow the parties to file complete materials for an interlocutory stay motion.
The court awarded full indemnity costs against a party for obstructionist and reprehensible litigation conduct.
This endorsement addresses costs arising from an unsuccessful and untimely motion brought by Sarah Werner to vary an order appointing a litigation guardian for her mother, Ida Rubin.
The court found Ms. Werner's proposed motion to be an obstructionist tactic, lacking merit, and brought in breach of a scheduling order.
Due to Ms. Werner's reprehensible litigation conduct, the court awarded full indemnity costs against her to the applicant and litigation guardian.
Additionally, costs were awarded to other parties (Morris Rubin and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company) from the estate, with these amounts to be allocated solely to Ms. Werner's share.
The court declined to schedule a motion to vary a litigation guardian appointment due to the moving party's lack of standing.
Joseph Pernica, litigation guardian for Ida Rubin, sought a case conference regarding his status amidst upcoming motions.
The endorsement addresses a purported motion by Sarah Werner to vary an order appointing Pernica as litigation guardian for Ida Rubin, arguing Pernica exceeded his mandate by obtaining Ida Rubin's banking records and challenging Ida Rubin's capacity.
The court declined to schedule Ms. Werner's motion, finding she lacked standing under Rules 59.06 and 7.06(1)(b).
The court affirmed Pernica's role as litigation guardian and provided specific directions for any future motion by Ida Rubin herself to remove the litigation guardian, emphasizing the need for transparency, personal affidavit, and attendance in open court for cross-examination due to the risk of abuse in ex parte proceedings.
The court also declined to stay the case, emphasizing the need for information sharing for mediation and a mechanism for fund distribution.
