This was an Appeal from an Applications Judge’s Order refusing to compel the disclosure of a settlement agreement as between two of the Respondents and non-party individuals. The Appellant alleged that the settlement agreement amounted to a fraudulent preference designed to defeat the Appellant’s claim for outstanding legal fees.

The Court began its analysis by setting out the standard of review applicable to an Appeal of this nature. Justice Labrenz referred to the following principles as arising from Rule 6.14 and the related case law: (a) an Appeal from an Applications Judge’s Judgment or Order is an Appeal on the record of proceedings before the Applications Judge, but may also be based on additional evidence that is relevant and material; (b) the standard of review on all issues is one of correctness; (c) although an Appeal on the record, the Appeal is viewed as being de novo due to the possible expansion of the factual records from what was before the Applications Judge; and (d) where the record has not been enhanced, it is not an error for the Court to summarily rely on or affirm the Applications Judge’s Decision if the Court views it as correct in fact and law.

Justice Labrez noted that the standard of review on the review of a Decision of an Applications Judge pursuant to Rule 6.14 is correctness. Justice Labrenz noted that the Appellants had put forward no new evidence on Appeal. In the result, Justice Lebrenz found no error in the Applications Judge’s Decision and therefore dismissed the Appeal. The Court granted leave to make submissions on costs should the Parties not be able to reach an agreement on their own.