The applicant, a former spouse, sought preservation and non-depletion orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act, respectively, to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets.
These orders were contingent on setting aside a comprehensive separation agreement due to alleged misrepresentation and non-disclosure.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant lacked standing for a section 40 order as a divorced spouse and failed to meet the stringent Mareva injunction test, which was deemed applicable given the contingent nature of her claims for equalization and support.
The court found no strong prima facie case to set aside the agreement, no evidence of asset dissipation to avoid judgment, and no undertaking as to damages.