COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-45659 DATE: 2023 03 30 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Asmaa Al Fatal, Applicant AND: Ahmed Ali Hiknet Al Fatal, Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: D. Broadus, for the Applicant G. Wells, for the Respondent

HEARD: March 30, 2023

Endorsement on motion

[1] The Applicant wife moves for (i) a preservation of assets order, (ii) a preservation of documents order, and (iii) an order that the Respondent husband shall “assign carriage and control” of a condominium unit in Mississauga “to the Applicant for purchase and appraisal”.

[2] The preservation of documents order sought is on consent of the Respondent, provided that it is made mutual. There is no reason for it not to be mutual, and the Applicant has offered no opposition to it being mutual. Thus, that relief is granted with respect to both parties.

[3] The preservation of assets order is denied. I note the following:

(i) the Applicant’s materials on the motion set out no statutory basis for the relief being sought, though in oral submissions the Court was told that it is section 12 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, as amended;

(ii) the Applicant’s materials on the motion include no Financial Statement and, more important, no Net Family Property Statement;

(iii) the Applicant’s materials on the motion include no calculation, or estimation, of any equalization payment that the Applicant alleges may be owing to her; and

(iv) the Applicant’s materials on the motion include no claim, even in the alternative, for injunctive relief under any provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

[4] In these circumstances, the Court cannot reasonably grant the relief being sought. It has long been the law in Ontario that a person in the shoes of the Applicant has an onus to demonstrate that she is likely to receive an equalization payment that has some relation to the value of the assets that are the subject of the preservation order being sought. Lasch v. Lasch, [1988] O.J. No. 488 (Ont. H.C.J.). On the evidence before this Court, the Applicant has failed to meet that onus. In fact, the only evidence before the Court about an anticipated equalization payment is from the Respondent, and that evidence shows that he is owed such a payment, and a substantial one, from the Applicant.

[5] The order sought about the Mississauga condominium is, likewise, denied. Counsel for the Applicant acknowledged during oral submissions that the said relief really amounts to a vesting order, which order it was further acknowledged by counsel for the Applicant is not appropriate at this stage of the proceeding. Simply put, there is, at this time, nothing to enforce by way of such an order.

[6] Consequently, the Applicant’s motion is dismissed, as the Court indicated to counsel at the conclusion of oral submissions.

[7] On costs, the Respondent’s counsel made some attempts to resolve parts of the motion, which attempts were not fruitful. The Respondent’s full indemnity costs are about $3000.00. The motion was doomed to fail and should never have been advanced on such a flimsy evidentiary record. This Court orders that the Applicant shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of today, pay costs to the Respondent in the total amount of $2000.00.

Conlan J. Date: March 30, 2023