The appeal challenged the chambers judge's decision to retroactively add Main Acquisitions Consultants Inc. (MAC) as a petitioner in the proceedings after Prior Properties Inc. had already discontinued the petition.
Judicial Findings:
Jurisdiction and Discretion: The chambers judge was found to have potentially overstepped by adding MAC as a petitioner nunc pro tunc (retroactively) after the petition had been discontinued. The court considered whether the judge had the jurisdiction to make such an order and whether it was appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction in this manner.
Nunc Pro Tunc Order: The court discussed the conditions under which a nunc pro tunc order might be appropriate, referring to factors such as whether the order would prevent prejudice or facilitate justice. It concluded that the order was not warranted as it did not meet these criteria, particularly given the lack of opposition from MAC and the unaddressed implications for the appellants.
Outcome:
The appeal was allowed, and the order adding MAC as a petitioner was set aside. The court emphasized the necessity of applying the correct legal standards, particularly in the absence of full argumentation from all affected parties.
