“The jurisdiction to grant a non-dissipation order in the context of family law is found within ss. 12 and 40 of the FLA, which provide as follows:
12: In an application under section 7 or 10, if the court considers it necessary for the protection of the other spouse’s interest under this Part, the court may make an interim or final order, a) restraining the depletion of the spouse’s property; and b) for the possession, delivering up, safekeeping and preservation of the property.
40: The court may, on application, make an interim or final order restraining the depletion of a spouse’s property that would impair or defeat a claim under this Part. [Part III]
The Court must balance the following when making a preservation order against a spouse: (a) the relative strength of the applicant’s case, and whether there is a serious issue to be tried; (b) the balance of convenience (or inconvenience); and (c) irreparable harm. This ultimately involves “an assessment of the risk of dissipation of the assets in existence prior to trial.” See Bronfman v. Bronfman, [2000] O.J. No. 4691 (S.C.), at paras. 2829. See also Price v. Price, 2016 ONSC 728, [2016] O.J. No. 466, at para. 7.
Parham has focussed on what he alleges is an absence of evidence of him dissipating assets to make himself “judgment proof.” “[T]he court does not issue orders restraining people from dealing with property without some evidence, as opposed to bare allegations.” See Pollak v. Pollak, 1993 CanLII 16080 (ON SC), [1993] 48 R.F.L.(3d) 56 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 7.”