ENGLUND & ENGLUND

In this matter before McClelland J, the dispute concerned proposed orders relating to the management and disposition of rental income from various properties owned by the parties. The wife sought orders to control the deposit of rental income from specific properties into designated bank accounts, while the husband raised concerns about the wife's disclosure of her business relocation arrangements. A central issue was the parties' compliance with their duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts, documents, and information relevant to the dispute, as stipulated by clause 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Rules.

The court was required to determine whether the wife's proposed orders, as presented, were necessary and appropriate, and whether they unduly impacted the business activities associated with the properties. Furthermore, the court had to consider the adequacy of the parties' compliance with their disclosure obligations, particularly in light of the husband's recent sale of a business premises and the wife's alleged lack of disclosure regarding her business relocation. The court also considered whether to make orders requiring the husband to refund monies from the matrimonial property pool that the wife contended were applied for his sole benefit.

McClelland J applied the principle that courts may make interlocutory orders to ensure the effective exercise of their jurisdiction and to prevent the frustration of their process. This requires establishing a real risk of assets being disposed of and a real ground for believing that the applicant will be prejudiced in their remedy. While not requiring proof of all propositions for final relief, the applicant must demonstrate a real risk, not merely an assertion, that the other party may deal with assets in a manner that prejudices the court's ability to make appropriate final orders. The court found that while the net property pool was substantial enough to allow for adjustments at final hearing regarding alleged sole benefit payments, there was a significant concern regarding the parties' disclosure obligations. The court noted the wife's complaint about the late disclosure of the husband's sale of a business premises and the husband's complaint about the wife's disclosure regarding her business relocation.

Consequently, the court made orders substantially as sought by the wife, including the properties owned by YPL, but with modifications. These modifications clarified that the orders would not apply to reasonable deductions from rental income for ordinary business expenses, and an additional order was made requiring monthly accounts of such expenses. The court was not satisfied that orders requiring the husband to refund monies applied for his sole benefit were necessary at this interim stage, given the size of the net property pool.