Case information

Family law — Whether applicant had shown unpaid labour and caregiving contributions to family business and household such that equitable interest arose — Whether business was joint venture — Whether income attributed to applicant arbitrarily — Whether caregiving reality disregarded — Whether applicant’s investments in family home were disregarded — Best interests of children — Failure to safeguard well-being of children — Denial of effective remedy.

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.

(PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

I.D. and G.D. were married in 1995 in Moldova under a matrimonial regimen equivalent to that of a partnership of acquests. They had six children together, of whom two were minors when I.D. filed for divorce in December 2021. I.D. and the children remained in the family home after the separation. The divorce was not contested, but the parties did not agree to the accessory measures relating to the financial consequences of the divorce. Inter alia, both parties asked the court to impute income to the other for the purposes of calculating child and spousal support, and I.D requested G.D.’s share of the family residence in lieu of a lump sum in respect of spousal support. During the marriage, G.D. was the sole shareholder in a moving company whose assets included a single truck. I.D. primarily looked after the children, but said that she devoted some time to the business. They owned a mortgage-free house.

The trial judge granted the divorce. Having determined the income of each of the parties, which included imputing income to I.D., he set child support, and declined to order spousal support. He ordered that the family patrimony be sold and the proceeds be distributed equally once G.D. received credit for one payment. He dissolved the Partnership of Acquests and ordered the acquests divided equally, on certain terms. The Court of Appeal dismissed I.D.’s appeal but allowed G.D.’s appeal in part, finding that the trial judge had committed a palpable and overriding error in finding that one amount was an acquest.