An interesting case came to my attention from the Canadian Lawyer with respect to a preservation order that was made in the context of a family law proceeding in P.E.I. as a result of the wife’s concerns about her husband’s drug addiction, which he denies.
The decision of Chief Justice Clements of the P.E.I., in M.B. v. D.B., 2023 PESC 39, starts with as follows,
[1] The primary issue before the court is whether to grant the wife’s request for a robust preservation order related to the husband’s fishing operation, essentially giving control of the operation to the wife. The wife is concerned with actions that have been taken and may be taken by the husband; the potential depletion of assets; the potential impact on the wife’s credit rating; and, the potential impact on the family home. The wife believes the husband’s actions are being impacted in a significant way by the husband’s addictions (which she views is “crack/cocaine”). The husband denies any addiction issues.
Having been hooked from the first paragraph, the balance of the reasons is just as interesting. In this case, the family’s main source of income is the husband’s business which is a fishing operation (snow crab, lobster, tuna – all my favorites). Together, the parties have two children who are seventeen and eleven years old. They had a twenty-year marriage until the petition for divorce. The wife had given up her career as a dental assistant in order to stay at home with the children and help with the fishing business. It was actually acknowledged by the husband that the wife helped significantly with the business’s bookkeeping and banking, and that she largely controlled its finances.
The test applied by Justice Clements was the test for injunctive relief set out in RJR-MacDonald, [1994] 1 SCR 311:
1. Is there a serious question to be tried?
2. Will the moving party suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted? and
3. Is the granting of the interlocutory injunction favourable on the balance of inconvenience?
Amongst other things, Justice Clements was persuaded by the wife’s concerns about her husband’s behaviour and the potential addiction issues, the fact that the husband failed to make two significant loan payments that were due prior to the motion (of which the wife is the guarantor of the loan), and the significant sums of money that were being withdrawn from the accounts over a relatively short period of time.
In the end, it was emphasized that the injunction was ordered on an interim basis because Justice Clements was “trying to build some stability, accountability, and transparency”.
Thanks for reading.