The Applicants brought an Application set aside an ex parte freezing Order (the “Order”) issued by Romaine J. The Order restrained the Defendants from dealing with any of their exigible property and required third party institutions to disclose financial records.

Justice Little noted that while the Applicant’s counsel did not specifically refer to Rule 9.15 or 9.16 in the Application, Rule 9.15(2) requires such an Application to be brought within 20 days of the Order being served or coming to the attention of the Defendants. Counsel agreed that this requirement was waived. Further, under Rule 9.16, an Application brought pursuant to Rule 9.15 to set aside is to be brought before the Judge who granted the Order unless the Court orders otherwise, which was also set out in Romain J.’s Order. However, exceptions can be made when a Judge is not available or when, for example, “it was issued some time ago in morning chambers and the issuing judge would not likely be in a better position than any other judge to re-think the matter.” In this case, counsel agreed that Romaine J. consented to the Application being heard by another Judge since she was starting a long Trial. Further, two other Justices had heard Applications to vary the Order by permitting funds to be released for living expenses.

The Court ultimately granted the Application to set aside the Order. Counsel for the Applicants sought full indemnity Costs to be assessed pursuant to Rule 10.37. Justice Romaine held that if Counsel were unable to agree on Costs, whether full indemnity or otherwise, they were to provide written submissions on Costs not exceeding five pages.