“The legislative provision allowing for preservation order to be made is s. 12 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. The test applicable to the determination of this question was set out in Bronfman v. Bronfman, 2000 CanLII 22710 (ONSC). In that case, the wife also sought to extend a preservation order she had obtained on an ex parte motion. The court stated that the test applicable was the same as the one applicable to a request for an injunction, in which the court must consider the following factors:
(1) the relative strengths of the parties’ positions;
(2) the balance of convenience; and
(3) whether irreparable harm may occur if relief is not granted.
Paragraphs 26 through 31 of Justice Sachs’s decision are instructive. She says:
… a court will want to consider how likely it is that the plaintiff or petitioner will receive an equalization payment. It will also want to consider the effect that granting, or not granting, such an order will have on the parties. Under s. 12, the agenda is to protect the spouse’s interests under the Family Law Act, so that if a spouse is successful in obtaining relief under that Act, there are assets available to satisfy that relief. Relevant to this exercise is an assessment of the risk of dissipation of the assets in existence prior to trial.”
Akter Mukta v. Zafor et al., 2023 ONSC 3468 (CanLII) at 16-17