BACKGROUND:
The Applicant and Respondent were married on November 26, 2014. The parties jointly owned the matrimonial home in Gananoque, Ontario. The remaining issue arising from the breakdown of the parties’ marriage was the equalization of their net family properties pursuant to Part I of the Family Law Act.
The principal issue at trial was the determination of the valuation date. The Applicant submitted that the parties separated on February 23, 2023, while the Respondent submitted that the appropriate valuation date was January 27, 2023.
The parties experienced significant marital difficulties in January 2023. Specifically, on this date the Applicant underwent major surgery and returned to the matrimonial home on January 25, 2023. On January 27, 2023, an altercation occurred involving the parties’ daughter. Following the incident, the parties discussed separation, but also discussed mediation, counselling, and efforts to preserve their marriage.
The parties continued to reside together following January 27, 2023. The Applicant testified that they continued to hold themselves out as a married couple and attended a social engagement together. She also testified that the Respondent asked her to arrange anger-management counselling as part of an effort to preserve the relationship.
On February 23, 2023, the Applicant informed the Respondent that she had arranged a consultation with a lawyer and was leaning toward separation. An argument followed, during which a 911 call was inadvertently initiated. Police attended at the residence and ultimately escorted the Applicant from the home. The Applicant maintained that this incident marked the point at which there was no longer any reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
The Court accepted the Applicant’s evidence and determined that February 23, 2023, was the parties’ valuation date.
A further issue at trial concerned the Respondent’s financial disclosure. The Respondent failed to provide, among other things, a business valuation, business asset inventories, documentation supporting his proposed valuation of the business, documentation concerning the ownership dates of disputed assets, and itemized valuations of various property.
ANALYSIS AND THE LAW:
Determination of the Valuation Date
Section 4(1) of the Family Law Act defines the valuation date as the date upon which spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation.
The Court emphasized that determining the valuation date is a fact-specific inquiry. The Court outlined the following various principles used in their determination:
- The Court must consider the totality of the relationship and determine when there was both a separation and no reasonable prospect that the spouses would resume cohabitation;
- The determination is not governed by a single event, argument, or statement. Instead, the Court must consider the parties’ conduct, intentions, communications, living arrangements, and any efforts undertaken toward reconciliation; and
- Continued residence under the same roof does not necessarily prevent a finding of separation.
In this case, although the parties experienced significant difficulties on January 27, 2023, the Court found that the marriage had not finally broken down on that date. The parties continued to reside together, discussed counselling and reconciliation, and continued to engage in conduct consistent with an ongoing marital relationship.
The Court therefore found that the marriage finally and irreversibly broke down on February 23, 2023, and determined that this was the appropriate valuation date.
Financial Disclosure and Adverse Inference
The Court also addressed significant deficiencies in the Respondent’s financial disclosure.
The Respondent failed to provide information required by court order, including information relating to the valuation of his business, business assets, ownership dates, and various items of property. The Court found that much of the missing information was uniquely available to the Respondent.
The Court held that the lack of disclosure substantially impaired its ability to independently verify the Respondent’s assertions concerning ownership and value. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the non-disclosure, the Court drew an adverse inference that the missing financial evidence would not have assisted the Respondent’s position.
Accordingly, where the Respondent failed to produce information necessary to support an alternative valuation and the Applicant’s evidence was reasonable, internally consistent, and supported by the available documentary record, the Court accepted the Applicant’s evidence.
Valuation of the Respondent’s Business
The Court accepted the Applicant’s valuation of the Respondent’s sole proprietorship at $94,676.79.
The Applicant’s valuation was based on the available business records and documentary evidence. Despite being ordered to provide valuation information, the Respondent did not produce competing records, expert evidence, financial statements, inventories, or other reliable evidence capable of undermining the Applicant’s calculation.
The Court therefore found that the Applicant’s valuation was the most reliable evidence before the Court concerning the value of the business.
Matrimonial Home and Equalization
The parties jointly owned the matrimonial home. Ordinarily, the value of a matrimonial home and the debt secured against it form part of each spouse’s net family property calculation.
In this case, however, the Court determined that the parties’ interests in the property were identical. Both parties jointly owned the property, neither claimed a greater beneficial interest, and neither sought an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.
The Court ordered that, following payment of the mortgage, CRA lien, costs of sale, and other valid encumbrances through the sale proceeds of the home, the remaining equity would be divided equally between the parties.
Equalization Payment
Excluding the matrimonial home and mortgage, the Applicant’s net family property was determined to be $127,964.13. The Respondent’s net family property was determined to be $213,776.96.
The difference between the parties’ net family properties was $85,812.83. Pursuant to s. 5 of the Family Law Act, one-half of that difference resulted in an equalization payment of $42,906.42 payable by the Respondent to the Applicant.
The Court further determined that the equalization payment should not be contingent upon the sale of the matrimonial home. The equalization obligation was fixed as of the valuation date, and making payment dependent upon the future sale of the property could potentially delay the statutory equalization obligation.
CONCLUSION:
Overall, the Court found that although the parties experienced a significant marital dispute on January 27, their subsequent conduct, including continued cohabitation and discussions concerning counselling and reconciliation, demonstrated that there remained a reasonable prospect of reconciliation at that time.
The Court ordered the matrimonial home to be sold, with the net proceeds divided equally between the parties. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant an equalization payment of $42,906.42 within 60 days of the order, regardless of whether the matrimonial home had been sold.
Attention Legal Counsel: Professional Mediation Services
When your clients have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, Andrew Feldstein offers third-party mediation services specifically designed for cases where both parties have independent legal representation.
Why lawyers refer cases to Andrew:
- 30+ years family law litigation experience providing courtroom-informed reality testing
- Expertise in complex financial matters including business valuations and professional corporations
- Efficient, structured process that respects counsel’s time and maintains client relationships
- Flexible scheduling including virtual mediation and travel to counsel offices
Cases we handle: Negotiation stalemates, complex asset division, support calculation disputes, parenting arrangements, multi-jurisdictional matters, and post-separation modifications.
Refer your next mediation: Call Andrew directly at 905-415-1635 ext. 255 or email info@separation.ca. Virtual and in-person sessions available throughout the GTA.
Need Help Moving a Family Law Matter Forward?
Whether you are a lawyer seeking an experienced mediator or you are representing yourself and need legal advice, our family law team can help you understand the options and identify a practical next step.
How We Help
Mediation, negotiation, litigation, complex financial disputes, support, property division, and parenting matters. Virtual and in-person appointments are available throughout the GTA.