Family law - Division of family property - Order for division of property
Husband and wife separated after less than four years of marriage, during which he had consented to court order requiring him to transfer RRSP worth $80,500 to his prior wife. Husband applied for division of property and for occupation rent; wife applied for unequal division and credit for paying expenses of home. Husband’s application granted in part; wife’s application granted in part. Husband was not entitled to deduct $18,393 that he paid from his personal bank account to builder from his net family property as that was part of his $100,000 contribution towards purchase of home, matched by wife. Husband did not establish that, before this marriage, he had reached settlement with respect to his debt obligations to his former wife. Husband’s obligation to make equalization payment to former wife existed at time of marriage, valued at $72,364 that RRSP was then worth. Wife’s condominium in China, purchased many years earlier, increased in value from $370,876 at date of marriage to $626,367 at separation date. Wife would be selling unit soon, to repay loan from mother for legal costs, and she would be entitled to deduct notional disposition costs for real estate commission, Chinese deed tax, and capital gains tax, totalling about $80,000, from increased value of $255,500 that accrued during marriage. Wife thus had to include net sum of $175,000 in net family property for condominium. Deduction of about 20 percent of RRSPs and pension would be allowed given likelihood of tax payable on their disposition in future . Wife could not exclude $12,000 value of car from net family property as mother’s later gift to pay off joint debt for it could not be traced into it. Wife’s loans from mother lacked documentation and, given potential for non-repayment, only $5,000 of claimed $20,000 would be attributed to her as debt. Husband’s removal of matrimonial home, after eventually withdrawn assault charge, was not established to be through no fault of his own so as to entitle him to equitable claim for occupational rent but neither would wife be granted offsetting payment for carrying costs of home. Husband would be entitled to equalization payment of $65,500.
Zheng v. Xu (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 3294, 2019 ONSC 865, R.J. Nightingale J. (Ont. S.C.J.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca
