The case of Stokaluk v. Stokaluk,  O.J. No. 3097 involved allegations of controlling and intrusive behaviour by the husband, in addition to allegations of his propensity to gamble, which would have put the wife’s equalization claim at risk, justifying an order for non-dissipation of assets against the Husband.
In Barrotti v. Barrotti, 1009 CanLII 64180, the respondent had surreptitiously and largely encumbered significant assets, had not fulfilled his disclosure obligations, and was in substantial default of the interim support order under which he was obligated.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.