In an uncontested family property trial, the court considered whether equalization under the Family Law Act should be displaced by an unequal division and whether the applicant was entitled to post-separation adjustments.
The evidence showed that after separation the respondent procured a substantial second mortgage on the matrimonial home, converted the proceeds to personal use, failed to account for the funds, and left the applicant bearing family and household obligations while defending creditor litigation arising from his business affairs.
Applying the high unconscionability threshold under s. 5(6), the court held that requiring the applicant to pay the ordinary equalization amount would shock the conscience of the court.
The court therefore relieved the applicant of the equalization payment and awarded net post-separation adjustments of $285,251.23, with prejudgment interest from the date of the application.
