The parties separated after a four-year marriage.
The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(e) of the Family Law Act, arguing that equal division would be unconscionable because he brought the fully-owned matrimonial home into the short marriage.
The court valued several disputed assets, including a bush lot and a contingent interest in property.
The court concluded that full equalization would be unconscionable given the short marriage and the disparity in pre-marriage assets, ordering the applicant to pay 80% of the calculated equalization amount.
