The applicant sought equalization following a brief marriage, while the respondent relied on a 2012 document signed in Israel to argue that equalization had been contracted out of under the Family Law Act.
The court held that the document did not clearly oust equalization, was not properly witnessed as required by s. 55(1), and in any event should be set aside under s. 56(4) because the applicant did not understand its nature or consequences in the context in which it was created.
The court therefore determined the equalization amount rather than remitting the issue, deducting disposition costs from the matrimonial home and fixing the total owing at $132,050.85 after post-separation adjustments.
The respondent's spousal support claim was dismissed for lack of evidentiary foundation and entitlement.
