A surety, Northbridge General Insurance Corporation, sought to be added as a party or intervenor in lien-enforcement proceedings or to adjourn an upcoming application.
Background:
Lien holders were enforcing liens against a landowner who was placed into receivership.
The landowner’s receivership triggered a stay of proceedings.
Lien holders applied to lift this stay to proceed with their application.
The surety requested to be added as a party/intervenor or to adjourn the application to seek this relief.
Court's Analysis:
Appropriate Court: The surety’s request should have been made to an applications judge, not the Commercial-List court.
Procedural History: An applications judge, already familiar with the case, was best suited to decide on adjournment or adding parties.
Jurisdictional Authority: An applications judge had the same jurisdictional powers as a justice sitting alone in chambers.
Civil Practice Note 1: Adjournment requests after the Applicant’s brief should be made to the assigned judge or applications judge.
Rules of Court: Both adding parties and intervenors could be handled by the Court of King’s Bench.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act: The bankruptcy court’s role was limited to deciding on the stay of receivership, not the lien-enforcement proceedings.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the surety’s requests to be added as a party/intervenor and for adjournment without prejudice.
The surety could still seek relief from the appropriate applications judge.
Costs:
Costs were awarded to the lienholders against the surety, calculated according to Column 4 for an opposed chambers application. No financial terms specified.
