Janaki Manorani Wijesundera

The court reconsidered an equalization payment of $66,200 owed by the wife to the husband, following an initial judgment and addendum.

The reconsideration focused on whether equalizing net family properties would be unconscionable under sections 5(6)(e) and (h) of the Family Law Act, particularly given the short marriage duration (three years), the wife's non-financial contributions, and the market-driven appreciation of her Sri Lankan properties.

The court found that ordering the original payment would be unconscionable under s. 5(6)(e) due to the disproportionately large amount relative to the cohabitation period and the nature of the asset appreciation.

However, the court was not persuaded that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic met the high evidentiary onus for unconscionability under s. 5(6)(h).

Consequently, the equalization payment was reduced from $66,200 to $9,500, reflecting a prorated amount based on the cohabitation period and the wife's contributions.

This family law trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, child support, and the potential unconscionability of an equalization payment.

The court determined the valuation date to be December 8, 2015, and calculated that the wife presumptively owed the husband an equalization payment of $66,080.

The husband was ordered to pay child support and arrears.

The final decision on the equalization payment was deferred for further submissions on unconscionability, particularly considering the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wife's business.