Glen Carey

In a family law proceeding, the parties brought competing motions seeking various interim relief including disclosure, equalization advances, support adjustments, reimbursement claims, and other orders.

The court emphasized that interim orders are intended to provide temporary structure pending trial and discouraged repeated motions attempting to re‑litigate previously determined issues.

Several claims were dismissed or deferred to trial due to insufficient evidence or because they were more appropriately resolved on a full evidentiary record.

The court increased interim spousal support after the cessation of child support and imputed limited farming income to the husband.

A restraining order was issued preventing the wife from accessing the husband’s financial records or business premises through self‑help methods.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a short marriage.

During the relationship, the parties engaged in a corporate reorganization to shield the husband's farm assets from his creditors, including his former wife and a victim of his sexual impropriety.

This involved transferring a 50-acre parcel to the wife and issuing her half the common shares in a newly formed farm corporation.

The husband claimed a resulting trust over all the assets, arguing he never intended to gift them to the wife.

The court agreed, finding the transfers were gratuitous and part of a judgment-proofing scheme, and the wife failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

Consequently, the wife's claims for occupation rent were dismissed.

However, the court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment and to compensate the wife under a constructive trust for mortgage and tax payments she made on the 50-acre property.

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.