Counsel for the applicant has provided me with two reasons why she adjourned her motion in March 2015, and did not amend, refile or serve it until July 2016: 1. The applicant was awaiting the actual sale of the property to a third-party, so that they would know the full extent of the deficiency claimed; this is the reason for the delay up to June 2015; 2. Following the sale, applicant’s counsel became aware of this court’s decisions in CIBC Mortgages v. Samson-Hahn 2015 NSSC 149, released May 25, 2015; and Scotia Mortgage v. Fogarty 2016 NSSC 52, released February 24, 2016. Those cases dealt with the particulars of protective disbursements and the evidence required. The applicant became aware that these decisions had been issued or were forthcoming, and wished to wait for directions or clarification therein, before proceeding with their motion.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.