Following separation after an 18‑year marriage, the court determined several property and financial issues including ownership of foreign real estate, valuation and possession of jewellery, division of a pension, vehicle values, and post‑separation financial claims.
The court found the husband to be the beneficial owner of an apartment in India for equalization purposes and rejected his evidence regarding the alleged gift to his mother.
The court also concluded that the husband likely retained possession of the wife's jewellery and ordered payments relating to excluded and equalized jewellery value.
Applying s. 10.1(4) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered division of the husband’s pension at source.
Other disputed claims relating to household expenses and alleged hidden assets were largely dismissed or balanced out.
