Alla Koren

The Applicant sought a Mareva injunction and a non-depletion order against her deceased husband (Respondent) and an added party (his extramarital partner) to freeze assets allegedly transferred to frustrate an equalization claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that no order could be issued against the deceased respondent due to the stay of proceedings, and that the Mareva injunction failed because the added party had no assets in Ontario, the assets were already dissipated outside the jurisdiction, and the applicant failed to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The non-depletion order under the Family Law Act also failed as it cannot enjoin property of strangers to the family law action and the applicant did not establish a trust.

The respondent sought costs of over $16,000 for several case conferences and a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, who was later represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, had failed to attend conferences and her former counsel caused undue delay.

The court awarded the respondent $4,000 in costs payable by the applicant for the conferences and motion preparation, and $1,500 payable personally by the applicant's former counsel for unnecessary attendances caused by her delay and unresponsiveness.

In a high-conflict family motion arising after a very short marriage, the court addressed interim parenting, travel, matrimonial home possession, disclosure, and support issues.

The moving party was denied permission to travel outside Canada with the child because pending criminal charges and unresolved immigration consequences created a sufficient risk of non-return, but the responding party was permitted to travel abroad with the child during her vacation time.

The court granted the moving party exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under s. 24 of the Family Law Act, finding the child would not be disrupted by relocation and that the evidentiary record favoured interim possession pending trial of competing property claims under a cohabitation agreement.

The responding party's request for a final order implementing OCL recommendations and for child support based on a higher income was dismissed, although interim Guideline support was adjusted.

Outstanding disclosure was ordered and several financial issues were left for trial.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her attempt to set aside or vary a previous order requiring her to make an equalization payment of $32,211.11.

She alleged the original order was obtained by fraud, mistake, or without notice.

The Court of Appeal found there was proper service and notice, and rejected her new argument regarding a $48,000 debt as it was raised for the first time on appeal and lacked evidentiary support.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties were married in Russia and lived briefly in Ontario before the husband returned to Russia and obtained a divorce.

The wife subsequently brought an application in Ontario for spousal support under the Divorce Act or Family Law Act, and for equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts.

The Court of Appeal held that an Ontario court does not have jurisdiction to hear a corollary relief proceeding under the Divorce Act or a support claim under the Family Law Act following a valid foreign divorce.

However, the court held that an Ontario court does have jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to hear and determine an equalization claim by a former spouse following a valid foreign divorce.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt of a Mareva injunction for depleting his self-directed RRSP and imposing various sanctions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding but found the sanctions, which effectively granted final judgment to the respondent on multiple claims, were disproportionate to the disobedience.

The Court set aside the disproportionate sanctions, including the striking of the appellant's defence, and substituted an order requiring the appellant to pay the value of the depleted RRSP into court as security.