The applicant wife brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and its immediate partition and sale.
The respondent husband consented to exclusive possession but opposed the remaining relief.
The court found no urgency to justify hearing the motion for a restraining order before a case conference.
However, the court held that it was in the interests of justice to order the immediate partition and sale of the home, as the wife had a prima facie right to it, the husband had previously requested the same relief in his pleadings, and delaying the inevitable order would only increase costs and waste judicial resources.
