Settlement (Garnishment): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<ref name="Raso"><i>Raso v. Bayne,<i> 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jbdh2>, retrieved on 2025-05-01 | <ref name="Raso"><i>Raso v. Bayne,<i> 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jbdh2>, retrieved on 2025-05-01 | ||
==<i>House v. Baird,</i> 2019 ONSC 1712 (CanLII)<ref name=House"/> | ==<i>House v. Baird,</i> 2019 ONSC 1712 (CanLII)<ref name=House"/>== | ||
[62] Pursuant to Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has the discretion to determine rights, liabilities or any matter in relation to the garnishment. The Baird settlement set damages at $500,000. It does not define the heads of damages breakdown. Baird acknowledges that it is his onus to show that the settlement is exempt from garnishment. | [62] Pursuant to Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has the discretion to determine rights, liabilities or any matter in relation to the garnishment. The Baird settlement set damages at $500,000. It does not define the heads of damages breakdown. Baird acknowledges that it is his onus to show that the settlement is exempt from garnishment. | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 1 May 2025
Raso v. Bayne, 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII)[1]
[11] Frank bears the onus of demonstrating that the settlement ought to be exempt from garnishment (House v. Baird, 2019 ONSC 1712 (Ont. S.C.J.), para. 62).[2]
[12] In 20 Toronto Street Holdings Ltd. v. Coffee, Tea or Me Bakeries Inc. (2001), 2001 CanLII 28048 (ON SC), 53 O.R. (3d) 360 (Ont. S.C.J.) Justice Nordheimer states at para. 5:
- I start from the basic proposition that garnishment is an equitable remedy and, as suggested by the use of the word “may” in subrule 60.18(16) above, the court may therefore make whatever order it deems just in the particular circumstances of any given case. As stated in the Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 17 at para. 539:
- The court’s power to make a garnishee order, whether it is an order nisi or an order absolute, is discretionary. A garnishee order is basically an equitable remedy, and it may be refused where the attachment of the debt would work inequitably or unfairly or cause prejudice or injustice to some person or persons other than the judgment creditor.
Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
