News Focus
News Focus
icon url

tacky

10/14/16 10:04 AM

#24364 RE: JFBroderick #24362

THE JUDGMENT IS VERY VERY CLEAR THAT THE AD HOC TRUSTEE WAS NOT PROPERLY APPOINTED.

[71] The Court is hearing an appeal from the interlocutory decision of the Council refusing the preliminary application by the appellant for a stay of proceedings on the ground of invalidity of the complaint because of the illegality of the appointment of the ad hoc trustee who filed it.



[73] Finally, the Court considers that the Board could not confirm the appointment of the respondent as trustee ad hoc and ratify his actions in the file, by means of the resolution of January 28, 2016 59 .
icon url

1jk1

10/16/16 7:42 AM

#24401 RE: JFBroderick #24362

[72] Obviously, this decision was made on the basis of the evidence submitted to the Council at that time, including the testimony of the respondent 58 . However, considering the new evidence filed with the consent of the parties to the hearing in appeal, it appears that this decision was wrong. If the Council had had access to that evidence, it would not have decided as it did. The appellant's application was therefore justified.