In a family law trial, the court addressed outstanding issues including the calculation of the equalization payment, entitlement to child tax benefits, and costs.
The applicant argued that the respondent's valuation-day debt should be reduced based on hindsight evidence of a post-separation consumer proposal.
The court rejected this argument, holding that hindsight evidence cannot be used to alter the actual value of a debt at the date of separation.
The court also found the respondent was the primary caregiver for the first year post-separation and entitled to full child tax benefits for that period.
The respondent was highly successful on the property issues and was awarded costs of $30,000 plus HST.
