The applicant and respondent separated after a 17-year marriage.
The respondent owned a business prior to the marriage, which was excluded from his net family property by a marriage contract.
During the marriage, the applicant signed an indemnity agreement to protect herself from liabilities related to the respondent's business when refinancing a mortgage.
At trial, the court found that the 'Due To Shareholder' account was part of the excluded business interest.
However, the court held that the indemnity agreement constituted a written agreement under s. 5(6)(g) of the Family Law Act.
Given the complex intermingling of personal and business finances, the court concluded that an equal division of net family property would be unconscionable and ordered an unequal division, resulting in no equalization payment being owed by the applicant.
The court also imputed an income of $40,000 to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered him to reimburse the applicant for various expenses related to the matrimonial home and cottage.
