Dara Khoeum

A wife brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, permission to remove her special needs horses and donkey, partition and sale of the home, and return of her laptops, following separation and criminal charges preventing her from accessing the home.

The husband cross-moved for exclusive possession.

The court granted the husband temporary exclusive possession until January 31, 2024, after which the wife would have exclusive possession until the property's sale.

The court ordered the husband to facilitate proper care for the animals by contacting their regular veterinarian and ensuring training for caregivers.

The husband was also ordered to return the wife's laptops and pay costs for breaching a prior consent order.

Powerline Plus Ltd. brought a motion for an order requiring Platinum Infrastructure Inc. to post security for Powerline's costs in the amount of $202,000.

Platinum opposed, arguing impecuniosity and merit.

The court granted leave for the motion under the Construction Act, finding Powerline established good reason to believe Platinum had insufficient assets, citing indicia of insolvency.

Platinum failed to prove impecuniosity or sufficient assets.

While Platinum showed a good chance of proving Powerline breached the subcontract, its claim quantum was inconsistent, and Powerline's set-off defence had some merit, though lacking cost evidence.

Considering Platinum's litigation conduct, which included unfair practices, the court ordered Platinum to post $100,000 in security for costs, payable in two installments.