The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.
The central issues at trial were the validity of a prenuptial 'Family Agreement', a claim for unjust enrichment regarding home renovations, ownership of the family dog, and equalization of net family property.
The court found the Family Agreement to be a valid and binding domestic contract, which provided a juristic reason defeating the applicant's unjust enrichment claim.
The court ordered the family dog to remain with the applicant and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent at $43,547.
