The applicant wife brought an emergency, ex parte motion for a preservation order over the respondent husband's assets, primarily his recently commuted pension.
The husband had failed to disclose the details of his retirement package and the transfer of pension funds.
The court found the urgency threshold was met due to the husband's lack of transparency, but held the requested order over all assets was disproportionate.
The court granted a partial preservation order over two GICs and the matrimonial home.
No costs were awarded to the applicant because her counsel failed to give notice of the motion to the husband's active counsel.
