Superior Court Penalties I
Freezing / Non Encumberance / Non Dissipation / Non Depletion Order
Non dissipation orders in this study refer to orders preventing one or both parties from disposing of assets. They may be directed to specific assets or a general prohibition on all property or wealth. They generally result from allegations a party is hiding or liquidating assets to try to avoid payment of obligations.
Non dissipation orders can be problematic in divorces where large amounts of money may have to be generated quickly. If a person cannot access their savings it can be difficult to finance large retainers for lawyers. Freezing orders might impede a party from running their own business. Someone who becomes unemployed could be utterly reliant on savings. A divorce may entail many additional costs. Exclusive possession of the family home for one spouse usually generates large expenses for the other in resettling Large retroactive or imputed support payments may be hard to sustain from income alone. Credit could become impossible to obtain. They would even be denied social services because of the assets they own but are precluded from using.
Non dissipation orders are generally interim orders in effect until some final resolution is obtained. They may be sustained indefinitely until some payment is made or criteria met. Violation of non dissipation orders can result in contempt or other punitive measures. 40 non dissipation cases were identified in the data base. A summary of these cases and their outcomes is included as Appendix I 1 for cases where a non dissipation order was imposed on a single party, and Appendix I 2 where a mutual non dissipation orders were imposed.
For family cases where non dissipation of assets was an issue the data is as follows
|
Party |
Non dissipation ordered |
Overturned |
|
Male |
24 |
2 |
|
Female |
2 |
1 |
For mutual non dissipation orders
|
Number of cases |
Wife gets spousal support |
Man gets spousal support |
Wife gets house |
Man gets house |
House is sold |
|
15 |
14 |
0 |
11 |
2 |
2 |
Summarized in percentage terms
|
Party |
Total |
Non dissipation ordered |
Overturned |
|
Male |
100 |
96.0 |
8.3 |
|
Female |
100 |
4.0 |
0.0 |
For mutual non dissipation orders in percentage terms
|
Number of cases |
Wife gets spousal support |
Man gets spousal support |
Wife gets house |
Man gets house |
House is sold |
|
100 |
93.3 |
0 |
73.4 |
13.3 |
13.3 |
% Men with Non Dissipation orders = 24 / 26 x 100 = 92.3 %
% Women with Non Dissipation Orders = 2 / 26 x 100 = 7.7 %
2 men who had non dissipation orders put against them had the orders overturned which is equivalent to receiving relief. No women had her non dissipation order overturned which is equivalent to relief. When relief is considered the data is as follows.
% Men with Non Dissipation orders = 22 / 23 x 100 = 95.7 %
% Women with Non Dissipation Orders = 1 / 23 x 100 = 4.3 %
It can be concluded that non dissipation orders are ordered against men at a rate of 22 to 1 compared to women. For mutual non dissipation orders women received spousal support 93.3 % of the time, and got possession of the family home 73.4 % of the time. In many of these cases the man must have been left with increased expenses and decreased means of paying. Some may of entailed additional costs such as child support or multiple court cases. In this study only one woman was penalized with a non dissipation order, and did not receive relief. Of all the couples mutually penalized only one woman did not receive income adjustment through spousal support.
Appendix I — Ontario Non Dissipation Cases Studied
|
|
|
Sex..of party |
Outcome |
|
1 |
Stokaluk v. Stokaluk, 2003 CanLII 2252 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man is accused of gambling problem, non dissipation order, restraining order |
|
2 |
Stajkowski v. Stajkowski, 2004 CanLII 26185 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Non dissipation order against man |
|
3 |
Fisher v. Wenger, 2003 CanLII 2312 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Non dissipation order against man, 2 breaches, contempt and 5 days imprisonment for the first |
|
4 |
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2006 CanLII 11921 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Non dissipation order against man kept in effect but charging or vesting order denied |
|
5 |
Dababneh v. Dababneh, 2003 CanLII 1959 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Security and non dissipation orders against man continued |
|
6 |
McDougall Pearce v. Murphy, 2004 CanLII 5876 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man under non dissipation order |
|
7 |
Harris v. Harris, 2006 CanLII 9141 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, man to pay wife support, wife gets house |
|
8 |
Damer-Basso v. Basso, 2003 CanLII 2055 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, man to pay wife support, wife gets house, mans share of family home held for security |
|
9 |
Dhanna v. Dhanna, 2004 CanLII 46660 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Non dissipation order against man continued |
|
10 |
Holmes v. Holmes, 2005 CanLII 20809 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, man to pay wife support, wife gets house |
|
11 |
Kropf v. Kropf, 2003 CanLII 2155 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, man gets home, woman gets support, man violates non dissipation order |
|
12 |
G.C.M. v. P.M.M., 2002 CanLII 2753 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, wife gets house, custody and support outstanding, non harassment order |
|
13 |
Leyland v. Baillie, 2006 CanLII 9311 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, wife gets house and support, house later sold |
|
14 |
Cunningham v. Montgomery-Cunningham, 2005 CanLII 36261 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual or just man, wife gets support, house not mentioned, wife claims husband has given false income |
|
15 |
Coletta v. Jones Coletta, 2003 CanLII 2412 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, wife gets home and sells farm where man lives violating order, sentenced to jail for contempt, support not mentioned |
|
16 |
Elder v. Elder, 2005 CanLII 48920 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual, home sold, wife gets 2 K per month support and may use family assets for medical treatment |
|
17 |
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 2005 CanLII 47744 (ON S.C.) |
m,w |
Mutual, Wife gets home for 2 years then sold, man gets 12 K bill on household payments, woman gets support |
|
18 |
Sigro-DiGiosaffatte v. DiGiosaffatte, 2003 CanLII 2238 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans pleadings struck, non dissipation order, lump sum spousal support, 44 K in cost arrears, man violates non dissipation order |
|
19 |
Roscoe v. Roscoe, 2003 CanLII 2037 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Mans pleadings struck, non dissipation order, 36 K in cost arrears, child support default with FRO, refused variation |
|
20 |
Sokoljuk v. Sokoljuk, 2002 CanLII 2814 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Non dissipation order against man, wife gets support, man must pay into court funds held in foreign bank account |
|
21 |
Roby v. Roby, 2003 CanLII 2111 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares bankruptcy, multiple contempts, non dissipation order, 12.5 K in costs post bankruptcy, support recovery and reset on actual post bankruptcy income |
|
22 |
Piskor v. Piskor, 2002 CanLII 2755 (ON S.C.) |
m w |
Mutual or just against man, man gets home and violates non dissipation order transferring ownership, wife gets 3.5 K per month spousal support, variation stayed until arrears paid |
|
23 |
Shamli v. Shamli, 2004 CanLII 12363 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Wife gets ex parte orders freezing and seizing mans assets, man moved money out of country and abducted son, man gets supervised access |
|
24 |
T. S. v. E. J. S., 2002 CanLII 2851 (ON S.C.)
|
w |
Order freezing wifes assets granted |
|
25 |
Laiken v. Tatsambong, 2003 CanLII 29739 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Order freezing mans bank accounts set aside |
|
26 |
Valente v. Valente, 2004 CanLII 48680 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Wife gets preservation order for bank accounts and combines fraudulent conveyance action with divorce |
|
27 |
Debora v. Debora, 2004 CanLII 44791 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Order freezing some of mans assets continued |
|
28 |
Kreft v. Mezo, 2006 CanLII 14412 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Wife gets ex parte freezing order, order set aside |
|
29 |
Ho v. Ho, 2003 CanLII 2315 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Preservation order against mans assets but when wife has them seized they are already gone |
|
30 |
Fantin v. Gillingham-Corkun Fantin, 2003 CanLII 2114 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man traded from stock account and lost money contrary to preservation order, no penalty |
|
31 |
Garlough v. Garlough, 2002 CanLII 2845 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Preservation order against family trust, wife gets house and support |
|
32 |
Rose v. Rose, 2005 CanLII 46401 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
May not encumber deplete or sell business |
|
33 |
Stockie v. Stockie, 2003 CanLII 2353 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Man’s RRSP to be preserved and work benefits held in trust |
|
33 |
Swanson v. Swanson, 2004 CanLII 48679 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans 8 K bank account to be preserved and not depleted, contempt for depletion |
|
34 |
Smolders v. Smolders, 2003 CanLII 2247 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual non depletion order, wife gets house and support |
|
35 |
Gazo v. Gazo, 2005 CanLII 3386 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Wife obtains ex parte non depletion and seizure orders, overtruned on appeal as court lacked jurisdiction |
|
36 |
Biddle v. Biddle, 2004 CanLII 52809 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man given non depletion order, 9 K per month total support, interim disbursement of 20 K to wife |
|
37 |
Picollo v. Picollo, 2004 CanLII 50314 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual non depletion and harassment order, wife gets support |
|
38 |
Beitel v. Beitel, 2004 CanLII 10698 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Man given non depletion order, commits perjury about financial situation |
|
39 |
Campeau v. Campeau, 2005 CanLII 25948 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife pleadings struck, sells property and husband files fraudulent conveyance action, assets are frozen and then unfrozen |
|
40 |
McGahey v. McGahey, 2006 CanLII 5456 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mutual non depletion order |