Following a lengthy family law trial in which the wife was largely successful, the court addressed remaining issues concerning security for various payments ordered against the husband.
The court confirmed its authority under s. 34(1)(k) of the Family Law Act to secure child and spousal support, as well as prejudgment interest related to the equalization payment, by way of a charge on the husband's property.
However, it declined to secure payment of land rent and the prejudgment interest associated with that rent, finding that ss. 10 and 12 of the Family Law Act did not apply to those obligations.
The court also refused to secure costs through the property charge, concluding that the relevant rule applies only where a costs order remains unpaid after default.