The respondent brought a motion to vary a previous order concerning the amalgamation and ownership of corporations, specifically seeking to remove the applicant's interest in the amalgamated entity.
The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for alternative relief.
The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that it was functus officio and that the respondent had not demonstrated a mistake in the original order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.
The court only corrected a typographical error in the original order, requiring the parties to negotiate a cooperative agreement for the amalgamated corporation.
