The respondents moved for an order to try two proceedings (CV-16-24195 and CV-18-26529) together.
The first action concerned the estate trustee's administration of an estate and passing of accounts, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.
The second action, commenced by the estate trustee, sought to collect a payment on a promissory note related to a share purchase agreement, with the respondent in the first action counterclaiming undue influence and economic duress.
The court applied Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the balance of convenience test.
It found that while there was a minor common issue (value of estate's shares), the relief claimed did not arise from the same transactions, and the actions were at different stages of litigation with different complexities.
The motion to consolidate or hear the actions together was dismissed.