DRUMMOND & CALDER

In *Drummond & Calder*, heard by Cronin J, the dispute concerned an application for an interim property order. The court was presented with evidence that was described as confusing, leading to uncertainty regarding the just and equitable nature of exercising its discretion to make such an order.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was satisfied that it was just and equitable to make an interim property order given the confusing nature of the evidence presented. This required the court to consider the threshold for making interim orders in property settlement proceedings and the impact of evidentiary uncertainty on that threshold.

Cronin J ultimately made an interim property order requiring the husband to pay the wife $30,000 within 30 days. The court also provided for the possibility of consent orders being made based on minutes drafted by the husband's counsel, with a deadline for agreement. If no agreement was reached by that date, the parties were required to attend a case assessment conference. All other interim applications were dismissed.