The appellant husband appealed an order requiring him to pay an equalization payment representing half of the damages he was awarded for loss of income in a motor vehicle accident.
The husband argued the trial judge erred by valuing the claim based on the undefended personal injury judgment rather than expert evidence of its lower value at the date of separation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the husband could not dispute the value he attributed to the claim in the personal injury action by presenting different evidence in the matrimonial proceedings to reduce his equalization payment.
