The appellant wife appealed an order denying an adjournment of a motion to have funds held in court stand as security for future spousal support payments.
The respondent husband was legally entitled to the funds and was not in default of his monthly support payments.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the wife's claim of a lack of a meaningful remedy was speculative and that the motion judge did not err in using an injunction-like analysis to deny the adjournment, as granting it would have effectively stayed the payment out of court.
