Bryan R.G. Smith

The applicant sought a non-dissipation and preservation order under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dealing with assets, particularly shares in his private corporations, pending trial.

The court considered the strength of the applicant's case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

While the applicant had an unassailable claim for spousal support and an arguable case for an equalization payment, the court found no risk of dissipation by the respondent, who had complied with temporary support orders and demonstrated efforts to grow his business.

Granting the order would severely cripple the respondent's companies, causing irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay agreed-upon costs, to be set off against future payments.

The applicant in a family law case claimed a constructive trust in the respondent's house arising from an alleged 13-year cohabitation.

The respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a constructive trust claim for an ownership interest in land is an 'action to recover land' governed by the ten-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court also noted that if the Real Property Limitations Act did not apply, there would be a gap in the legislative scheme for family law constructive trust claims.

The applicant sought costs after the respondent withdrew her answer in a family law application concerning the validity of a separation agreement and referral of child support issues to mediation/arbitration.

The applicant argued that under rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules he was entitled to near full recovery of legal fees exceeding $22,000.

The court held that rule 12(3) entitles a party to costs thrown away by a withdrawal but does not automatically require full indemnity recovery.

Considering proportionality, the limited procedural steps taken, and the absence of unreasonable conduct, the court fixed costs at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

Payment of the costs award was deferred until specified milestones relating to the mediation/arbitration of the child support dispute.