AMARI & SIDKAR

In the matter of *AMARI & SIDKAR*, heard before Gill J, the proceedings concerned an application by the Father to adduce further evidence, which was opposed by the Mother. The core of the dispute revolved around the admissibility of this proposed evidence in the context of an application for security for costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Father should be permitted to file and rely upon further affidavits. This determination required the Court to consider the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence in interlocutory proceedings, particularly in the context of security for costs applications, and whether the proposed evidence met the necessary threshold for admissibility.

Gill J refused the Father's application to adduce further evidence. The Court reasoned that the proposed evidence was not of a nature that would justify departing from the usual practice of confining evidence to that which was properly before the Court at the time of the initial application. The Court ordered that the Father's written submissions be refiled, with any references to material not in evidence clearly indicated by underlining, to reflect the dismissal of the application to adduce further evidence. The Mother's costs in relation to this application were reserved to the hearing of the security for costs application.