Court File and Parties
CORRECTED DATE: 20260428
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Farooz Soroor, Applicant
AND:
Roozbeh Manshaei, Akbar Manshaei, Respondents
BEFORE: M. Kraft, J.
COUNSEL: Naser Abedi, for the Applicant Roozbeh Manshaei, In-person Akbar Manshaei, Not Present
HEARD: March 12, 2026
CORRECTED ENDORSEMENT
Nature of the Motion
1This is the applicant wife’s motion for a preservation order pursuant to ss. 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act, in which she seeks to freeze the respondent husband’s two bank accounts at TD and one bank account at RBC, totalling $50,000 as security for her family law claims.
2The wife asserts that the husband dissipated two significant assets in early 2024 by transferring $95,000 to his father in Iran and transferring land in Ontario to his father in Iran at below fair market value for $400,000. When the wife learned that the husband had divested himself of assets worth in excess $495,000, thereby making himself judgment proof in Canada, she brought this motion.
3As an alternative to freezing the husband’s three bank accounts, she seeks an order that he pay the sum of $50,000 into court as security for her family law claims.
4The husband seeks to dismiss the wife’s motion. He claims that he transferred these assets to his father to repay him for loaning the parties $505,000 during their marriage in 2019.
5The added respondent, the husband’s father, did not appear on this motion. Nor did he file responding material. The added respondent was served with the material at the same time as the husband was served.
Issue to be decided
6The issue for me to decide on this motion is whether it is appropriate for the husband’s Canadian bank accounts to be subject to a preservation order or whether the husband should pay $50,000 into court?
Brief Background
7The parties were married in Iran on September 10, 2010.
8They have one child of marriage, age 6.
9The parties do not agree on the date of separation. The wife submits that the date of separation is June 20, 2023, and the husband believes the date of separation is 4 months later, on October 12, 2023.
10Regardless of the date of separation, the parties agree that the husband transferred a total of $495,000 to his father by sending $95,000 to him in Iran and by transferring land in Ontario to the husband’s father worth at least $400,000 after the date of separation.
11According to the husband, his father transferred funds of more than $505,000 to him through an exchange company in 2019. The wife does not dispute that the funds were transferred by the husband’s father. However, she believes that this was a gift to the parties and not a loan.
12According to the wife, the husband’s parents gifted the parties about $450,000 to $500,000 which they used as a down payment to purchase a house when she was pregnant with the parties’ child. The wife claims that the parties used these funds to make a down payment of $340,000 toward the purchase of their matrimonial home at the end of February 2020. Both parties are on title to this home.
13The matrimonial home was sold on June 30, 2023. The husband received the net proceeds of sale of $106,461.17 and $17,736 from the real estate broker. These funds were deposited into the parties’ joint bank account. According to the wife, the husband transferred $17,700 to a friend.
14On November 18, 2021, the parties purchased a pre-construction property located in East Gwillimbury, ON. Both parties were on title to this property. On January 25, 2022, the parties sold this property, which resulted in a capital gain. The net proceeds of sale were over $441,800.
15In July 2022, the parties purchased an investment property located at 11 Albert Street West, Hillsdale, Ontario (“Albert Street property”) with title in both parties’ names. The parties had a dispute about the renovation of this property and they sold it on August 31, 2023. The net proceeds of sale, of $164,556.50 were deposited into the husband’s sole bank account and $50,000 was deposited into the parties’ joint bank account, which the husband then withdrew from the account according to the wife.
16The wife argues that she is entitled to 50% of the net proceeds of sale from the Albert Street property, namely $81,769.50. The husband has refused to remit any portion to the Applicant.
17On January 9, 2024, the husband transferred $95,000.00 from his bank account to his father in Iran. The husband’s father is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada. The transfer occurred months after separation without the wife’s knowledge. The bank draft was issued under a name requested by the exchange company to facilitate the transfer to Iran. The exchange company has now confirmed that this was their process in a letter attached to the husband’s affidavit as an Exhibit.
18The husband purchased land at 5394 Penetanguishene Road, Elmvale, Ontario using funds from the refinancing of the jointly owned matrimonial home and private lenders. On June 30, 2023, when the parties’ matrimonial home was sold, the private lender’s mortgage of $372,385.28 was paid from the proceeds of the matrimonial home sale. Title to this property was in the husband’s sold name. The wife claims an interest in this land in Elmvale on the basis that the funds to purchase the property came from the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home. She argues that on the date of separation, the husband was holding her 50% interest in this property in trust for her. She is making a resulting trust claim or, alternatively, a constructive trust interest in this property.
19A Comparative Market Analysis dated January 12, 2024 by the husband’s real estate agent valued the property between $499,900 and $550,000.
20On February 13, 2024, the husband transferred his parcel of land to his father for $400,000.00. This transfer, along with the $95,000, was repayment of $495,000 of the $505,000 loan, leaving $10,000 remaining outstanding.
21The Transfer/Deed of Land lists a Canadian address for the husband’s father, the parties’ former rental matrimonial residence, even though the husband’s father resides in Iran.
22The wife’s current net family property calculations show that the husband owes her an equalization payment (“EP”) of $337,000. According to the husband’s net family property calculation, his NFP is zero. That is because he lists a debt on his side of the ledger owing to his father of $505,000.
23The husband submits that the loan of $505,000 from his father was interest free with no payment terms. He argues that he undertook to repay the loan to his father when it was financially possible for him to do so.
24The husband’s sworn financial statement, dated February 2, 2026, discloses the following bank accounts:
a. TD chequing bank account number 0621-6524348 located at Yonge Street at Drewry Ave, 5928 Yonge Street, Willowdale, Ontario M2M 3V9 has a balance of $12,440.00;
b. TD savings bank account number 0621-6530194 located at Yonge Street at Drewry Ave, 5928 Yonge Street, Willowdale, Ontario M2M 3V9 has a balance of $38,530.79; and
c. RBC bank account 5091582 located at 5001 Yonge Street, North York, Ontario, M2N 6P6 has a balance of $150.00.
25The bank accounts listed above are the husband’s only remaining liquid assets in Canada.
26The husband deposes that the funds in TD chequing account are used by him for ordinary living expenses and ongoing financial obligations. He currently pays child and spousal support to the wife and he argues that if his bank accounts were frozen, it would interfere with his obligation to pay support to the wife.
27The husband also asserts that his TD savings account contains fund that he has set aside to address his liability owing to CRA. He points to his Notice of Assessment from CRA in 2024 which shows an outstanding balance of $64,386.81, which includes taxes and penalties.
28As an alternative to freezing the husband’s bank accounts, the wife seeks an order requiring the husband to pay $50,000 into court as security for her family law claims.
Should the husband’s bank accounts be subject to a preservation order or should he pay $50,000 into Court?
29Section 12 of the Family Law Act provides as follows:
In an Application under section 7 or 10, if the court considers it necessary for the protection of the other spouse’s interests under this Part, the court may make an interim or final order, (a) restraining the depletion of a spouse’s property; and (b) for the possession, delivering up, safekeeping and preservation of the property. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 12.
30Section 12 of the authorizes interim preservation and restraining orders.
31Section 40 of the Family Law Act provides that:
- The court may, on application, make an interim or final order restraining the depletion of a spouse’s or same-sex partner’s property that would impair or defeat a claim under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 40; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (18).
32The object of a preservation order is to protect the Applicant’s claims for equalization and support: Adler v Adler, 2016 ONSC 2414 at para 49.
33The three-part test on a motion for a preservation order is found in Price v Price, 2016 ONSC 728 at para 6:
a. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
b. Will the moving party suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted?
c. Which party will suffer the greater harm from granting or refusing the remedy pending a decision of the merits?
34The wife seeks a preservation order which is restricted to the husband’s three Canadian bank accounts or that he pays $50,000 into court, which is the sum total of what is in his three bank accounts.
35"[T]he court does not issue orders restraining people from dealing with property without some evidence, as opposed to bare allegations." See Pollak v. Pollak, 1993 16080 (ON SC), [1993] 48 R.F.L.(3d) 56 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 7.
36I am persuaded that the three prongs of the test are met in this case on the following basis:
a. I find that on a balance of probabilities; there is a serious issue to be tried in respect of the determination of property division, including equalization and dealing with the wife’s trust claims. The wife has presented evidence demonstrating that on her calculations, the husband owes her an EP of $337,119.86. The husband’s position is that his NFP is equal to zero and that he is, in fact, owed an EP from the wife. This position, however, is because he lists the debt owing to his father on his side of the ledger in the sum of $505,000. If the husband is correct and the funds were loaned to the parties by his father, then husband ought not to have repaid his father the entirety of the loan (less $10,000). At most, he ought to have only repaid his half-portion, being $252,500. By transferring the land to his father in February 2024, he extinguished this alleged debt to his father and prejudiced against the wife’s family law claims against him for an unequal division of his net family property and her trust claims made in relation to the property he transferred to his father. A charge shall be issued on title to the Elmvale property to the extent of the wife’s half-share of this debt/gift and the parties can return before me to address this issue.
b. I am also persuaded that the wife is at risk of irreparable harm because the evidence demonstrates that the husband transferred $95,000 from his bank account to his father in Iran and transferred his only real property in Ontario to his father in Iran, at a price lower than the estimated fair market value, using a fraudulent Canadian address. As a result, the majority of the husband’s assets have been transferred to Iran and by preferring the loan to his father, he ignored the wife’s claim that the loan was a gift, prior to the determination of this issue. The husband has not explained why he transferred the net proceeds of sale from the East Gwillimbury property to his father in Iran. The husband’s father, although named as a party to this proceeding, did not appear on the motion or take a position. It is unknown whether the husband’s father has mortgaged the Elmvale property or if the equity is preserved. The husband’s conduct has made this case complex in the sense that even if the wife is granted an order for an EP in Ontario, it is unknown whether the courts in Iran will enforce this order as against the husband’s father.
c. Finally with respect to the balance of harm, I am persuaded that of the two parties, the wife stands at greater risk. The husband makes sweeping statements that the wife was aware that his father had lent the parties $505,000 during their marriage. However, this is not the wife's evidence nor does it accord with her narrative that the funds were given to the parties as a gift to enable them to purchase a home before their son was born. Further, the wife clearly did not understand that the husband would be taking their assets and repaying his father to her detriment. While I accept that freezing the husband’s bank accounts may cause him hardship since they are operating accounts, he can pay the funds into court so as to ensure the wife’s claims are not entirely defeated and he continues to meet his obligations.
37Courts have consistently held that: a) past dissipation supports an inference of future risk (Habibi v. Aarabi, 2021 ONSC 5574); b) offshore or interjurisdictional transfers heighten risk (Dormon v. Dormon, 2025 ONSC 1023); and c) transfers to third parties may be restrained where badges of fraud exist (Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2018 ONSC 5587)
38The jurisprudence confirms that the threshold under section 12 is protective and preventative. The wife does not need prove completed fraud. It is sufficient to establish a serious equalization claim and a real risk that the husband’s only remaining assets may be depleted, concealed, or rendered unavailable before trial. Where there is evidence of prior transfers, non-disclosure, liquidity manipulation, or third-party shielding, the Court’s intervention is not only justified, but also necessary to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the integrity of the equalization regime
The husband’s conduct exhibits multiple recognized badges of fraud: he transferred assets to a close family member; he did so for inadequate consideration; the transfer was to Iran making him judgment proof in Canada; he listed a false address for his father in Canada; these transfers took place after the separation; and he has been evading disclosure persistently.
ORDER
39This court makes the following temporary order:
a. Within 3 days from the release of this Endorsement, the respondent shall pay the sum of $50,000 into court, pursuant to rule 25.1 of the Family Law Rules.
b. On an temporary temporary without prejudice basis, pursuant to s.9 of the Family Law Act, there shall be a charge registered on title to the property municipally known as 5394 Penetanguishene Road, Elmvale, Ontario LOL 1P0 in the sum of $252,500 (one-half of the alleged loan owing to the respondent’s father) as security for the applicant’s family law claims and the added respondent, AKBAR MANSHAEI, shall be given notice that this charge on title has been made.
c. The parties, including the added respondent, shall schedule a return date before me to address the charge registered on title to the Elmvale property once the added respondent is given notice of this Endorsement and of the Charge.
d. Both parties shall serve a copy of this Endorsement on the added respondent by email.
The Honourable Justice M. Kraft
Date: March 16, 2026
Corrected Date: April 28, 2026
** Paragraph 14 of the endorsement dated March 16, 2026, is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the current Paragraph 14 set out in this corrected endorsement dated April 28, 2026.