Arresha Zubair

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant brought a motion to adjourn the trial and strike the respondent's pleadings due to the respondent's failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion to adjourn and strike, noting the extensive procedural history, previous orders mandating the trial proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to resolve matters efficiently.

The court granted the applicant's request for a non-dissipation order regarding the respondent's shares in certain companies.

The Applicant sought an adjournment of trial and an order striking the Respondent's pleadings due to alleged non-disclosure and breaches of prior court orders.

The Applicant also requested a non-dissipation order regarding the Respondent's shares in certain companies.

The court denied the adjournment and the request to strike pleadings, emphasizing the long procedural history, previous judicial directives for the trial to proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that late disclosure could be addressed through negative inferences and costs at trial.

A non-dissipation order was granted, but only as it affected the Respondent's shares, not third parties.