Michael Kril-Mascarin

The applicant wife moved to strike the respondent husband's Answer for his failure to comply with four provisions of two prior consent orders regarding life insurance beneficiaries, golf club disclosure, monies received from the club, and loan details.

The court found the husband had clearly failed to comply with the orders.

However, applying the test for striking pleadings, the court declined to strike the Answer, opting instead to order strict deadlines for compliance and $10,000 in costs payable before the upcoming settlement conference.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from depleting his assets, specifically funds received from a motor vehicle accident settlement.

The applicant alleged the respondent was recklessly spending the funds and relied on dated medical reports to question his financial capacity.

The court applied the three-part test for a preservation order and found the applicant failed to establish a clear claim for equalization or support, failed to prove irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion was dismissed.

In a divorce application involving complex corporate structures, the applicant husband brought an interim motion seeking to compel the respondent wife to transfer her shares in several closely held corporations to him, or alternatively, to wind up the companies.

He also sought a restraining order.

The wife sought a sealing order for a video exhibit, and the husband sought to consolidate the wife's wrongful dismissal action with the family proceeding.

The court dismissed the husband's requests for share transfers and winding up, finding no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act prior to equalization and no oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The restraining order was also dismissed.

The court granted the wife's request for a sealing order and the husband's request to transfer and hear the wrongful dismissal action together with the family proceeding.

The applicant moved for an interim order for the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and for interim spousal support.

The parties cohabited for several years, during which the respondent financially supported the applicant while he obtained his degrees.

The court dismissed the motion for partition and sale, finding that a trial was necessary to determine the parties' respective beneficial interests in the property, especially given the imminent trial date.

The court granted the motion for interim spousal support on a needs basis, ordering the respondent to pay $1,458 per month retroactive to the date the application was served, but declined to order the respondent to secure the support with a life insurance policy.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent was indebted to it for $2,000,000 USD advanced for a solar project in Barbados, and the appointment of a receiver.

The respondent failed to obtain the required zoning approval within the stipulated 12-month period and repudiated the agreements.

The court found that the respondent was obliged to repay the funds and rejected its claim for equitable set-off based on a separate project in the Dominican Republic.

The court granted judgment for $2,000,000 and ordered the appointment of a receiver, subject to a 30-day grace period for repayment.