9 Feb 2017
On the balance of probabilities the Court found that F paid the purchase monies and intended to be sole beneficial owner; the husband and F held legal title as nominees for F, therefore Factory 5B is held on trust for F and is not beneficially owned by the Respondent and is not available for distribution in the matrimonial proceedings.
23 Oct 2014
The Court granted leave on the clawback issue because it raised questions of general and public importance but refused to permit a broad add-back of extra-marital expenditure and declined to disturb the judge's equal division: add-back requires proof of wanton/reckless/extravagant spending and a fairness-based, open-ended add-back was rejected as unworkable and discretionary deference to the trial judge was appropriate.
29 May 2008
The court found that the action has its most real and substantial connection with Ontario because the wife is settled there, parties jointly own significant property in Ontario, witnesses are the parties and the husband’s residence in Hong Kong is tenuous; the wife’s Ontario proceedings were more advanced; there was no evidence that trial in Ontario would deprive the husband of legitimate personal or juridical advantages. Accordingly the court exercised its discretion to stay the Hong Kong proceedings in favour of the Ontario Court.
16 Nov 1990
Given the inadequacy of factual findings and mutual nondisclosure of financial resources, the Court of Appeal held that the judge's orders for immediate sale of the Mei Foo flat, eviction and a lump sum (orders 1–3) were unjustified and should be set aside; orders for nominal maintenance, periodical payments for children and costs below were to remain in force, and costs of the appeal were to be left to the parties (order nisi) with legal aid taxation for the husband's costs.