Tag: ex parte

26 Feb

Seeking a Certificate of Pending Litigation: On Notice or Without?

Paul Emile Trudelle Litigation Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

A Certificate of Pending Litigation is common in estate litigation, where claims often involve an interest in land.

In order to obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation (“CPL”), the moving party must demonstrate a triable issue as to whether the party has a reasonable claim to an interest in the land. The threshold is a low one: the moving party does not have to show that they are likely to succeed. See Natalia Angelini’s blog on CPLs, here.

Rule 42.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion for an Order granting a CPL may be made without notice. Having said that, the question becomes should the motion be brought without notice. The recent decision of Justice Myers in Moses v. Metro Hardware and Maintenance Inc., 2020 ONSC 6684 (CanLII) suggests that parties should strongly consider bringing the motion on notice.

There, the plaintiffs moved for and obtained a CPL without notice. The defendants moved to set it aside. They were successful.

In setting aside the CPL, Myers J. found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts, did not identify any of the defendants’ likely responses, and relied improperly on inadmissible evidence.

Myers J. observed that the plaintiffs did not need to bring the motion without notice. There was no urgency. However, by proceeding without notice, the plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly undertook the extra obligation to make full and fair disclosure of facts and law to the court.  Myers J. referred to Rule 39.01(6), which provides that “Where a motion or application is made without notice, the moving party or applicant shall make full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and failure to do so is in itself sufficient ground for setting aside any order obtained on the motion or application.”

Myers J. noted that ex parte motions are an exception to the adversarial system and require special considerations. “The regular zeal that is perfectly appropriate in the face of an equally zealous adversary does not apply when a party chooses to go before a judicial officer without anyone else present to keep his or her zealousness in check.” The duty to make full and fair disclosure replaces the checks and balances of the adversarial system. As another judge observed, “There is no situation more fraught with potential injustice and abuse of the Court’s powers than an application for an ex parte injunction.”

In concluding, Myers J. stated:

I wish to be clear as well that I am not undermining in the least the law that accepts that moving without notice for a CPL is the norm. However, parties must be mindful of the nature of the enhanced and exacting duties that they undertake when they decide to do so. Sometimes, in face of true urgency, one has no practical alternative. However, parties often do have a choice as to whether they truly need to proceed ex parte. If they do not really need to do so, they may wish to consider whether it is worth the risk.

The test for a CPL is not a difficult test to meet. A plaintiff starts from the position of an aggrieved party seeking the court’s protection. That is a favourable strategic position to occupy. However, on a motion to set aside an order obtained without notice due to a breach of the duties to make full and fair disclosure, the plaintiff is no longer seen as the aggrieved party facing a light test. Rather, it becomes the alleged wrongdoer facing a very high standard of performance. While it may be tempting to move without notice to obtain an order without opposition, in my view, it is a questionable strategy to voluntarily undertake the exacting duties of full disclosure and fair disclosure where it is not absolutely necessary to do so.

The consideration of whether to bring a motion without notice applies to other types of motions in addition to motions for CPLs. For example, Orders for Assistance under rule 74.15 can be made without notice. However, the court has cautioned that just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. See our blog on these types of motions, here.

Thank you for reading.

Paul Trudelle

12 Mar

Should I Bring a Motion in the Estates Court Without Notice?

Hull & Hull LLP Estate & Trust, General Interest, Litigation, Passing of Accounts Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

When is it appropriate to bring a motion in the Estates Court without notice?   The answer requires consideration of both the statute and common law.

The starting point is Rule 74.15(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Here, a person who has a financial interest in an estate is permitted to seek an order for assistance.  Some of the more ‘popular’ orders for assistance include: requiring a person to accept/refuse an appointment as estate trustee; requiring an estate trustee to file with the court a statement of the nature and value of the estate assets at the date of death; and, requiring an estate trustee to pass accounts.

Subject to narrow exceptions, Rule 74.15(2) allows these motion to be made without notice (in latin, ex parte).

Notwithstanding this, the Court has not necessarily embraced ex-parte orders with open arms.

For instance, Corbett J. in Robert Half Canada Inc. v. Jeewan found that, before ordering an ex parte injunction, a party needed to demonstrate some element of ‘extraordinary urgency’.

Moreover, and specifically in relation to estates orders for assistance, Justice DM Brown in Ignagni Estate (Re), noted that orders for assistance are not mere administrative devices, and that the consequences of failing to abide by such an order is significant.  He went on to say that, “[m]embers of the Estates Bar may regard the requirement to give notice of a motion for an order for assistance unless “extraordinary urgency” exists as imposing undue costs on the administration of the estate.  Against that must be weighed the fundamental principle that a court should not issue an order against a person without affording that person an opportunity to explain the other side of the story.  Many estate disputes arise in the context of strained family relationships, or out-and-out family battles.  Courts should exercise great caution before granting an order that imposes obligations on one side in a family dispute.  Unless some extraordinary urgency exists, prudence and the principles of natural justice require a moving party to give notice of the order requested so that the respondent enjoys the opportunity of placing the rest of the story before the court.”

Given this, although permissible, parties who intend to seek orders for assistance without notice, must ensure there is ‘extraordinary urgency’ in doing so.

Noah Weisberg

Find this blog interesting, please consider these related blogs:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET