Mareva and Anton Piller orders are two extraordinary forms of civil injunctive relief that may be granted prior to a full trial. Often, these orders are obtained without notice. To obtain these types of relief, the threshold to meet is high because the consequences are significant.
Parties to a lawsuit are often surprised to learn that the accusations thrown at them, and at times deeply personal information about them, may be filed in the court system and open to the entire public. Instinctually, many parties may wish to have certain personal information disclosed in the litigation not form part of the public record.
Investors often consider cryptocurrency and digital assets to be global assets and are not cognizant of the jurisdictional and legal issues that can apply in the event of a dispute. For Canadians investing in such assets, the applicable legal jurisdiction should not just be considered to be a peripheral issue.Canada is home to a large and growing community of retail and institutional investors, and its courts and regulatory bodies are increasingly being asked to address disputes involving global crypto platforms. Yet, unlike in the United States - where the Congress recently passed the Genius Act to create a clearer regulatory framework - Canadian law remains somewhat unsettled.
An analysis of Rule 9.01(1) and (2)and Lev v. Lev. In estates and trusts related matters, both Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure and Manitoba’s Court of King's Bench Rules permit litigation being brought against a trustee without joining beneficiaries as parties subject to certain exceptions. In Manitoba, failure to join beneficiaries will be fatal to the attack on a trust. In Ontario, however, we could not find one case that addresses this issue. The purpose of this blog is to review the Manitoba case in question and assess the viability of such a defence to an attack on a testamentary document in Ontario.
How do you go about serving extrajudicial documents on parties outside of Ontario? Are courts strict in their enforcing the rules governing service? Let’s start the conversation by saying that service of legal documents on parties outside Ontario is a laborious, arduous and involved task.
What test does the court apply when deciding if a person is under a disability that requires a litigation guardian? This question was addressed in 626381 Ontario Ltd. v. Kagan, Shastri, Barristers & Solicitors[“Kagan”]. Its importance stems from the fact that the definition of capacity is often situation and statute specific. It’s also important because it reminds us that the rationale and threshold for compelling someone to undergo a medical examination in the context of a substitute decisions matter is very different than in the context of a Rule 7 motion. Let’s start our discussion with the facts of the case.
What if the person you are suing dies before the lawsuit has been completed? The answer starts with Rules 11 and 9.01. We will be dealing with Rule 11 later in our series. For the purposes of this blog, it suffices to say that Rule 11 deals with the transfer of interest or liability to another party by virtue of assignment, bankruptcy, death or other means. When a party to a lawsuit dies, the proceeding is stayed. At that point, any interested person may file the material necessary for the registrar to issue an order to continue – reigniting the lawsuit.
Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure – R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 was designed to protect vulnerable incapable persons involved in litigation. Under that rule, when a party is under a disability and thereby incapable of advocating for him/herself, someone shall step into the incapable person’s shoes and become their litigation guardian to make decisions on their behalf.
There is an interesting interplay between Rule 7.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Limitations Act, 2002. Historically, the legislature and courts suspended limitation periods for a plaintiff who was a minor until that minor reached the age of majority. But, section 9 of the Limitations Act 2002 allows a defendant to bring a motion to appoint a litigation guardian to represent a minor plaintiff and thereby trigger the start of the limitation period. The case of Siddiqui v. Saint Francis Xavier High School [Siddiqui] demonstrates how this situation can play out.
Rule 7.02(1.1)(b) of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE – R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 provides that unless a court orders otherwise an attorney for property shall act as litigation guardian for a person under disability. This is understood to be a presumptive, but not conclusive, entitlement. Our review of Berkelhammer v. Berkelhammer Estate focuses on what, in this case, the court considered in exercising its discretion to remove the attorney for property in favour of the Public Guardian and Trustee.