Case information

Family law – Family assets – Division - When does an “equal” division of family property result in unfairness? - How should Canadian courts interpret legislative schemes purporting to address the financial unfairness which routinely arises from marriage breakdown? - When should “non-titled” spouses share in the post-separation increase in the value of a matrimonial home? - Should legislative schemes governing family property across Canada be harmonized to ensure fairness to all Canadian women, a commonly marginalized group? - Should the bar for fairness and equity be different between provinces? - To what extent should equitable doctrines inform the interpretation of the Family Law Act (and its analogues across Canada)? - What are the equitable factors that Canadian courts should be focused on when determining the division of family property? - Should factors such as ability to work, a party’s role as child care provider, and other contributions to the household be considered? - Should market forces influence on depreciation or appreciation of family property value be considered?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant mother and respondent father were married in June 2014. The parties purchased the matrimonial home in 2015 and title was taken in the name of the father alone. The mother did not wish to be on the mortgage, and banking rules precluded her from being on title if she was not also on the mortgage. The parties’ relationship deteriorated after their daughter was born and they separated in November 2019. The matrimonial home sold in September 2020. There was a significant increase in the value of the matrimonial home between November 2019 and September 2020. The parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding the outstanding issues between them. At trial, the issues to be decided were parenting, child support, equalization of net family property and entitlement to the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home. The trial judge ordered that the child would reside primarily with the father with specified parenting time for the mother. He also ordered the mother to pay child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses. With respect the matrimonial home, the trial judge decided that that the mother was entitled to share equally in the post-separation increase in value. The Court of Appeal rejected the father’s grounds of appeal regarding the calculation of child support and the apportionment of s. 7 expenses. It ruled, however, that in the circumstances, the mother was not entitled to share in the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home.