With regards to the case of Dineson v. Dineson, [1958] 25 W.W.R. 542, provided by the defence, I find that that case is clearly distinguishable on the facts. That case dealt with a motion for an order to commit the respondent for contempt for disobedience of a court order which in laymen's terms is an application to have the respondent committed to prison for contempt for disobedience of a court order. Apparently the affidavit of service of the order did not show that order served had the memorandum endorsed on it as required by Rule 5 of the applicable rules, and further copies of all affidavits intended to be used on the motion were not served on the respondent with the notice of motion. The court found that these irregularities could not be condoned, this being a motion affecting the liberty of the subject.
"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.