The applicant and respondent jointly owned a property that was sold.
The applicant sought an interim injunction, payment into court under Rule 45.02, or an order under the Partition Act to freeze the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds, claiming she owed him for disproportionate carrying costs.
The respondent brought a cross-motion to release her half of the proceeds to close on a new property.
The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he failed to establish irreparable harm or a right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the respondent.
The respondent's cross-motion was granted.
