OVERVIEW AND INITIAL ORDER MADE

[1] This family law trial derives its character by the fact that the parties, when it was heard and argued, still resided under one roof.

[2] The fact of residing under one roof has meant that the sensibilities of the parties are still raw: hurt, blame, anger, fear, concealment and the absence of a new pattern of communication. This caused them to brood on evidence about the failures of the other in the marriage rather than provide the tools for an order that will arrange their parental and financial futures.

[3] The fact of residing under one roof has meant that they have no developed plan for how they intend to parent their children independently. The evidence indicates that the 17 year old daughter is in conflict with the Respondent Father so no real issue for adjudication is put forward. The 14 year old son is, by both parental accounts, under significant pressure in the tension of the household. The self reported conduct of each parent is, objectively, alienating inasmuch as both parents vie for his loyalty while yet offering no details on where or how they will live. Because they live under the same roof, neither parent has developed a plan to parent independently. Neither has demonstrated an ability to parent independently on the means that will be available to them after the trial. Neither has apparently pondered the issues of sole or joint custody, shared parenting or access or even the needs of the boy and what they can do to meet those needs. As indicated in the paragraph preceding, the parents are still locked in the bitterness of dispute and have not yet begun the transition into living or parenting autonomously.

[4] For this reason, I am not giving final judgment on parenting issues at this time. Rather, I am beginning the process that usually comes much earlier in family law litigation. I am setting out a parenting schedule, requesting the involvement of the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (OCL) and requiring the parties to reconvene once the parents have had an opportunity to set up their new circumstances and offered the son the best parenting they are able. Then will I judge the issues of custody and access that are premised in the best interests of the child, not, as the parents currently perceive, as a trophy for winning the case.

[5] The parties married in Syria on June 6, 1993, having enjoyed the benefits of an arranged marriage: an introduction in 1992 and then after agreeing to marry the Respondent Husband returning to Canada, where he had emigrated in 1987 to arrange for the Applicant Wife’s immigration documentation. Daughter Armig was born in Dec 1994 and son, Karmig in November, 1998.

[6] The Applicant Husband has maintained his employment with Honeywell (or its predecessor) for some 25-26 years as an air conditioning, heating technician. He reports income from employment, somewhat decreased in recent years. The Applicant Wife asserts he has often done work in the evenings and on weekends installing air conditioning or heating for cash. She asserts he claimed to have income over $100,000. He denies having the time for such work. Since 2006 he has spent his evenings and weekends building machinery for the business he intends relating to the import, processing and sale of bulgur wheat to an anticipated eager market of middle eastern immigrants. He has named the business Gold Valley Grains.

[7] The Applicant Wife has never been employed in Canada or Syria. She has taken some cake decorating courses at a retail store. Her Syrian education is to Grade 10. She is younger than the Respondent Husband, appears capable enough, but has no experience. The Respondent Husband asserts that she has been diagnosed with depression, particularly post partum depression. Indeed she has been under psychiatric care and has taken low dose Effexor for anxiety and sadness in recent years but weaned off them at her request with the help of Dr. Tewfic, the psychiatrist, whose clinical notes were before the court but he was not called. The Applicant Wife’s complaints to her family doctor, Dr. Salwa Ibrahim who gave evidence, appear to be connected to the frustrations that led to the marital breakdown. The Respondent Husband states that two doctors let him down and he would never have allowed his wife to stop the medication had he known.

[8] The Respondent Husband has been the sole support for the family. He has bought everything they have. When title was put into the Applicant Wife’s name it was for financial advantage: he bought spousal RSPs for the Applicant Wife that totalled about 76,000 before he insisted, in 2007, that $30,000 be withdrawn to retire the mortgage on the matrimonial home. Title to the matrimonial home is in joint names. It had been mortgage free but in January 2010, whether for a car as the Applicant Wife says, or for funds to finance a business venture as the Respondent Husband says she was taken to the CIBC bank to sign what needed to be signed for a line of credit secured by the matrimonial home.

[9] There was no independent legal advice, nor would there have been, because I find as a fact that the Respondent Husband did not differentiate between his property and any property interest the Applicant Wife might have. These concepts of entitlement infuse the Ontario family law sensibility but to many they are strange and unexpected.

[10] I also take this moment to comment on the long and sorrowful testimony of the Respondent Husband about his effort and financial sacrifices for the family, his trust in the Applicant Wife’s spending from their joint account and his perception that he treated his wife no less than a queen. As another human being I listened with empathy to his sorrowful astonishment that his efforts were not sufficient to keep a happy marriage. I listened too with empathy to the Applicant Wife’s sorrowful regret that in the marriage she felt lonely and denigrated. These sorrows are not for a court to heal. The court can help by giving clarity to the legal issues between them so that each will know their financial rights and obligations and each can know the nature and extent of their parenting rights and obligations.

[11] From time to time during the trial I tried to focus the parties’ attention to the task of providing evidence on these points. It was and is apparent to me that they were unable to disengage from their misconception that this trial would assign blame for the conduct of their spouse during the marriage. I regret that they will certainly be surprised that this judgment will dispassionately calculate what support and property equalization is owed; that each will be forced, by the reality of the income available to split between two households, to go on in much reduced financial circumstances and that they will, upon my judgment, be independent of one another except and only to the extent that my order creates continuing financial obligations. The greatest assistance that this court can offer to these distressed parties is finality.

[12] Even after a hiatus in the trial from June 22-August 13, it was my regretful impression that neither parent has the slightest sense of the impact of these proceedings. They argue points of principle necessary to a decision in an Ontario court necessarily based on the rule of law and legislated categories of issues with a profound naivety of the basic practical, financial, and legal implications. On the other side, I am left with the frustrated impression that I am profoundly naïve as to how they will proceed hereafter to meet their needs. Cultural and family expectations at play may guide their conduct but they will be bound by my order.

[13] In his summation, the Respondent Husband stated his view that the Applicant Wife doesn’t need a divorce; that the litigation arose from her foolish reaction one day in March 2010 when she discovered the transfer of funds to Syria; that she would come to her senses and they would be a family again.

[14] In all these circumstances, knowing I must reserve judgment to piece together the relevant evidence that made its way into the trial dominated by emotional statements of blame, I found it necessary to issue an order, effective immediately, while I could speak directly to the parties. Compliance has been an issue, but more than that, if I did not clearly and authoritatively require immediate steps, these parties would likely continue in their inertia and fail to respond to the reality, demonstrated by more than two years of litigation, that their cohabitation is at an end.

[15] My order endorsed August 13, 2012 at the conclusion of submissions was as follows:

I have heard the trial and argument and will reserve my decision. However, some steps must be taken without delay so I make these orders effective immediately:
Order to Issue that:

(a) The son, Karmig, is to be registered at Markville High School for grade 9;

(b) The Respondent Father will vacate the matrimonial home on or before August 30, 2012;

(c) When the Respondent Father can demonstrate that he has premises where there is a bedroom where the son’s furniture can be used the Respondent Father may retrieve the items requested by him on the property list filed as exhibit 12 (gun cabinet, television and son’s furniture). He shall arrange for police to attend with him at a time to be arranged through counsel;

(d) When Respondent Father has such a premises with Karmig’s furniture in a bedroom then Karmig may move there if he wishes, so long as he continues to attend Markville High School;

(e) While Karmig resides in the matrimonial home with the Applicant Mother he shall have access with the Respondent Father alternate weekends Friday after school to Monday morning school;

(f) If Karmig resides in the Respondent Father’s residence when the bedroom is available to him there, he shall have access to the Applicant Mother alternate weekends Friday after school to Monday morning school.

The matrimonial home is to be listed forthwith for at least 550,000 with Ms. Moss as listing agent. The Applicant Wife shall have carriage of the sale. If, before the release of my judgment there is an offer at 540,000 or more she may accept it without further signature. No proceeds are to be released subject to further court order or written agreement. Only the payments necessary for closing may be paid without further court order or written agreement.
The family car shall be in the possession of the Applicant Mother Monday to Friday and with the Respondent Father on the weekend.
The financial issues will await my judgment under reserve.
There are significant remaining issues about the children which I will address in my judgment.

INCOME

[16] The Applicant Wife has no income. Practical circumstances, not this order, will force her to find employment. But it cannot be expected that she can find work immediately. The Respondent Husband named several potential employers where the Applicant Wife’s culinary skill and knowledge of Armenian and Arabic language would be in her favour. Curiously he said that he knows these people and thinks that will help get her a job. This showed his naiveté in thinking that he will still be able to control her prospects. Several of the potential jobs were in Toronto. Still, I noted them because in the future, to avoid imputation of more income than she can earn, the Applicant Wife will have to show that she tried every reasonable lead.

[17] I intend to impute a small amount of income for 2012, a bit more for 2013 and then a reasonable ongoing expectation.

[18] The Respondent Husband has income from employment.

[19] I am not persuaded that he has other cash income because his hours are filled by his effort to build the machine for his new business venture from which there is, as yet, no income. When there is he will have to include that income in his annual disclosure of income which I intend to order and an adjustment of support may follow.

[20] The Respondent Husband has had taxable income less than his T4 employment income because he had deducted business expenses relating to Gold Valley Grains. I do not question the deduction for tax purposes but I intend a consistent treatment of the Gold Valley Grains question to reflect that in every way that business was his property. It is, thus far, like an expensive hobby. He has spent a good deal of time, money and effort on it. He has incurred a substantial debt on it. He has confidence in its future success and when it succeeds he will own it. He has forwarded money to Syria for the development of supply and storage for his proposed business product. He has testified that the Applicant Wife’s complaints, advanced by her family in Syria to his family business associates in Syria to whom he sent the funds for development of the venture, has impeded progress in a culture where insult to honour has a binding effect that contract does not. By his own testimony there is optimism for eventual success. If there is profit it will form part of his income but there is no income now to form part of the support calculations. Nor will I credit the deductions against his T4 income from employment.

[21] I fix the Respondent Husband’s income for 2012, based on 2011 T4 income, at $89,796.

[22] I fix the Applicant Wife’s 2012 income at $5,000, her 2013 income at $10,000 and income for 2013 and thereafter at $20,000. This is based on the reasons set out in paragraph 17.

PROPERTY

[23] I have ordered the matrimonial home listed for sale partly to encourage both parties to plan immediately for more modest accommodation independent of one another, and partly because the Net Family Property Statement of each party suggests there is little likelihood that either could buy the other out although the Respondent Husband expresses the hope to do so. I am aware that the Respondent Husband has previously demonstrated the ability to obtain credit form non traditional sources. If he has family or associates who provide him with sufficient financing I do not prohibit him from buying out the Applicant Wife’s interest but it is not possible on the evidence before me, so I ordered the listing for sale at the conclusion of the trial.

[24] When the trial was adjourned in July, I directed that inter alia that the parties “exchange lists re property from the house and identify the disputed items”. At trial a list was presented and any items on that list are ordered to be distributed in accordance with the list. Some details of items were identified at trial. I do not intend to specify those details herein as there did not seem to be dispute. I order that the Respondent Husband retain the full sets of Royal Doulton and Mikasa and cutlery he had before the marriage. The Applicant Wife’s share of dishes and cutlery shall be selected from the other available sets the family used. The Applicant Wife may not remove the oven.

[25] What was more problematic was that the list was obviously a very small proportion of the actual contents of the home. The Respondent Husband seemed to speak from the perspective that he would retain whatever the Applicant Wife had not listed subject to a demand that unwanted items and other garbage would require clean up which would have a cost. I predict many potential disputes over unanticipated items but I have no evidence or assistance to determine these issues. As the process of moving and cleaning up the house for sale matures the parties will have to develop a way to communicate about the unanticipated items.

[26] At the completion of trial when I announced my order effective as that date, the Respondent Husband raised a concern about the family vehicle. He has possession of a company vehicle during the week but has been prohibited from personal use. Both parents need a vehicle and seem to assume they will have one to implement their respective parenting plans. I ordered: “The family car shall be in the possession of the Applicant Mother Monday to Friday and with the Respondent Father on the weekend.” This arrangement cannot go on indefinitely. Since the Respondent Husband has transportation during the week and better means to replace his reliance on the family vehicle, I order that upon release of this judgment, the family car will remain in the possession of the Applicant Wife. The current insurance shall be maintained until its expiry date and thereafter the Applicant Wife will be responsible to renew insurance. The Applicant Husband will cooperate with transferring title to the Applicant Wife’s name before the divorce order becomes final.

[27] That brings me to the Net Family Property Statement analysis that must guide my decision about property. Having mentioned them in the previous paragraphs, I do not intend further comment on the part 4(b) category of General Household Items and vehicles. My findings are set out in Schedule A attached but some explanation is required:

[28] My first finding to construct a Net Family Property Statement must be the appropriate Valuation Day.

[29] The parties spent much time in the evidence on this point. I find that the Applicant Wife was irretrievably pessimistic about the marriage from January 2009. More and more they were estranged and kept their distance within the household. Still, I cannot find that they were separated based only on the Applicant Wife’s sensibilities. A court must be cautious in making judgements on the quality of a marriage because there are infinite ways in which different spouses behave while still considering themselves a couple. Discord within this household was chronic. Without some clear indication of a change in status I do not find that the separation began.

[30] Service of legal process was such a clear indication. I find the parties were separate and apart under one roof as of March 15, 2010.

(a) 4(a) Land

[31] The parties are joint owners of the matrimonial home. I have made an order to list it for sale. Either party is entitled to buy out the interest of the other for $225,000 (no notionals).

(b) 4(c) Bank accounts, securities and pensions

[32] The Valuation Day finding fixes the pension calculation at $201,953.11 or $100,976.55 maximum assignment each. This is to be divided. Findings for RRSPs and bank accounts arise from similar figures shown in the parties’ statements.

(c) 4(e) Business Interests

[33] I find that Gold Valley Grains is a business being developed by the Respondent Husband. There are no profits yet but the business is financed by the line of credit of $300,000 which the Respondent Husband sent to Syria for the purpose of developing the business.

[34] The evidence persuades me that the Respondent Husband is confident that in time the business will succeed. Its progress is delayed by a number of factors at present: the conflict between the partners as a result of the view that Mr. Khan failed to “muzzle his wife” and her family cause the partner to feel offended; the political upheaval in Syria; personal setbacks experienced by the partner (property burned down); the Respondent Husband’s lack of motivation while this litigation is ongoing.

[35] I find that the value of the business owned by the Respondent Husband equals the investment at $300,000.

(d) 5(b) Debts and Other Liabilities

[36] This business asset is offset in the Net Family Property Statement as the $300,000 also appears in the debts.

(e) 6 Date of Marriage Assets

[37] The Respondent Husband’s evidence of property he owned on the date of marriage June 6, 1993 is exceptionally poor. He has some documentation to support that he owned an “apartment” at 5 Old Sheppard, which was sold at a loss after a year of marriage. He then used the proceeds and some amount that must have come from savings to make a down payment on the matrimonial home. His calculations of value and the corresponding mortgage on date of marriage are unsupported. His estimates for household contents, vehicle, and bank account are inflated. However they have some value. My findings are mere estimates but better than imposing zero value.

[38] When my findings are inserted into the Net Family Property Statement it has this effect: the Applicant Wife shall pay a modest equalization to the Respondent Husband ; each shall have ½ the net proceeds of the matrimonial home if it is sold or one can buy the other’s interest for $225,000; the pension shall be split at source; the husband shall own Gold Valley Grains outright but be responsible to pay the CIBC line of credit.

[39] I cannot say what arrangement can be made with the CIBC but however it is accomplished the Applicant Wife is to receive ½ the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home or be bought out for $225,000 free of the Line of credit encumbrance.

[40] On August 17, 2011 Kaufman J. made a temporary order including:

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant from the above accounts the sum of $15,000.00 as an advance of equalization or as attributed by a court in the future.

[41] Any such payment of $15,000 that has been made to comply with this order is to be accounted for in the share the Applicant Wife receives by way of equalization from proceeds of the matrimonial home.

SUPPORT

[42] On August 17, 2011 Kaufman J. made a temporary order including:

Commencing Sept. 1, 2011 and monthly thereafter the Respondent shall continue all payments made for the family both directly and indirectly. In addition, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with spousal support in the sum of $550.00 per month commencing on Sept. 1, 2011. This is without prejudice to any retroactive claims by the Applicant.

[43] Every effort was made by the court in this trial to tease out evidence to base a determination whether, since the date of separation March 15, 2012, the Respondent Husband has paid sufficient to satisfy what would have been his support obligations had the family been in separate premises.

[44] All that can be said is that he did make many payments which chiefly served to maintain the premises but much less than was required to meet the daily needs of the wife and children. For instance, he objected to food costs saying she bought organic food which was not needed. The basic necessaries for food and gas and supplies were insufficiently funded.

[45] It is difficult to apply the Child Support Guidelines or the SSAGs to ferret out a quantum for support because shelter and some needs were paid. At income of $89,796 Child Support Guidelines table support for two children would be $1,290 and spousal support between $1,156 and $1,666 during this time when the Applicant Wife had no income.

[46] At its most modest, if the Respondent Husband were paying for half the needs of his wife and children directly,($2,446) he should still be paying support of $1,223. The ordered support of $550 is less than half of that. And it should have begun in March 2010. By now that is 29 months.

[47] There has been complication in enforcement. I do not have evidence of the amount actually paid to date.

[48] On August 13th I made an order that “When Respondent Father has such a premises with Karmig’s furniture in a bedroom then Karmig may move there if he wishes, so long as he continues to attend Markville High School”. I do not know whether Karmig is residing with his mother or his father at this moment.

[49] Armig is aligned with her mother but intending some post secondary education. This information was put before me in the context of custody argument but no details were developed to calculate contribution to post secondary education under Child Support Guidelines principle. I must simply assume she will reside with her mother and I will calculate table support.

[50] Based on employment income of the Respondent Father at $89,796 and income of the Applicant Mother at $5,000 for 2012, $10,000 for 2013 and $20,000 thereafter, I fix child support commencing September 1, 2012:

September 2012 – August 2013

(a) for two children residing with the Applicant Mother: $1,290/month child support and $1,400 spousal support;

(b) for one child residing with Respondent Father and one child with Applicant Mother (or away attending post secondary education): $799/month child support and $1,600/month spousal support;

September 2013 – August 2014

(d) for one child residing with Respondent Father and one child with Applicant Mother (or away attending post secondary education): $799/month and $1,400/month spousal support;

September 2014 –

(e) for two children residing with the Applicant Mother: $1,290/month child support and $1,400/month spousal support;

(f) for one child residing with Respondent Father and one child with Applicant Mother (or away attending post secondary education): $799/month and $1,100/month spousal support.

[51] The parties will produce to each other their Income Tax Return in each year by May 31, 2012 to permit Application for re-adjustment should incomes or the residence and entitlement to support of the wife or a child change.

[52] The Applicant Father will pay retroactive spousal support of $10,000 for shortfall since March 2012 at a rate of no less than $200.00/month in addition to ongoing support as set out in paragraph 50.

[53] The Respondent Husband will maintain any life insurance he now owns with a face sum of at least $100,000 to secure support obligations.

ONGOING PROCEEDINGS

[54] Order to Issue requesting the involvement of the OCL to provide counsel for Karmig to ascertain his needs and wishes now that the circumstances of the parties will inevitably change as a result of this my judgment.

[55] Either party may arrange through the Trial Co-ordinator in Newmarket for a motion in Newmarket or Barrie before me to finalize the parenting schedule and issues arising out of this judgment.

[56] The Applicant Wife may provide me with a clerk’s certificate and affidavit for divorce with the costs submissions as set out.

[57] The parties may make costs submissions in writing to be served and then provided to me through the Barrie judicial secretary consisting of no more than three pages together with offers and a bill of costs: Applicant Wife by Sept 20, 2012; response from Respondent Husband by October1, 2012 and reply by October 5th 2012.

EBERHARD J.

Released: August 29, 2012

SCHEDULE A – FACTS AS FOUND

Court File Number: FC-10-034809 Superior Court of Justice Family Court Branch 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6B1

Form 13B: Net Family Property Statement

Applicant: Talin Karajian 192 Raymerville Drive Markham, Ontario L3P 6S7

Applicant's Lawyer: Mark Greenstein KROL & KROL 9 Oak Avenue Richmond Hill, Ontario L4C 6R5 Tel: 905-707-3370, ext. 24 Fax: 905-707-3390

Respondent: Ara Karajian 192 Raymerville Drive Markham, Ontario L3P 6S7

The valuation date for the following material is: March 15, 2010 The date of marriage is: June 6, 1993

Table 1: Value Of Assets Owned on Valuation Date

PART 4(a): LAND

Nature & Type of Ownership	Address of Property	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Matrimonial Home	192 Raymerville Drive, Markham, Ontario L3P 6S7	$225,000.00	$225,000.00
15. Totals: Value of Land		$225,000.00	$225,000.00

PART 4(b): GENERAL HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND VEHICLES

Item	Description	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Household goods & furniture	Divided by agreement
Cars, boats, vehicles
16. Totals: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles		$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(c): BANK ACCOUNTS AND SAVINGS, SECURITIES AND PENSIONS

Category	Institution	Account Number	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
RRSP	TD/Canada Trust – 3500 Steeles Ave.		$36,023.64
RRSP	TD Waterhouse	44W142		$37,293.00
Chequing	C.I.B.C.	48-59235		$31,878.00
Savings	C.I.B.C. – Joint Account	76-25332	$18,287.06	$18,287.06
Savings	C.I.B.C.	35-27166		$27,757.00
Chequing	C.I.B.C.	40-14618		$18,350.00
Pension	U.A. Local 787		$100,976.55	$100,976.55
17. Totals: Value of Accounts And Savings			$155,287.25	$234,541.61

PART 4(d): LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE

Company, Type & Policy No.	Owner	Beneficiary	Face Amount ($)	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
18. Totals: Cash Surrender Value Of Insurance Policies				$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(e): BUSINESS INTERESTS

Name of Firm or Company	Interests	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Gold Valley Grains			$300,000.00
19. Totals: Value Of Business Interests		$0.00	$300,000.00

PART 4(f): MONEY OWED TO YOU

Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
20. Totals: Money Owed To You	$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(g): OTHER PROPERTY

Category	Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
21. Totals: Value Of Other Property		$0.00	$0.00

22. VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON THE VALUATION DATE, (TOTAL 1) (Add: items [15] to [21]) APPLICANT: $380,287.25 RESPONDENT: $759,541.61

Table 2: Value Of Debts and Liabilities on Valuation Date

PART 5: DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES

Category	Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Line of Credit			$330,000.00
Taxes (20%)	RRSP	$7,204.72	$7,458.60
23. Totals: Debts And Other Liabilities, (TOTAL 2)		$7,204.72	$337,458.60

Table 3: Net value on date of marriage of property

PART 6: PROPERTY, DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES ON DATE OF MARRIAGE

Category and Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Land (exclude matrimonial home owned on the date of marriage, unless sold before date of separation). Condo at 5 Old Sheppard		$115,000.00
General household items and vehicles Bank accounts and savings		$15,000.00
Other property
3(a) TOTAL OF PROPERTY ITEMS	$0.00	$130,000.00
Mortgage on 5 Old Sheppard		$80,000.00
3(b) TOTAL OF DEBTS ITEMS	$0.00	$80,000.00
24. NET VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON DATE OF MARRIAGE, (NET TOTAL 3)	$0.00	$50,000.00

Table 4: PART 7: VALUE OF PROPERTY EXCLUDED UNDER SUBS. 4(2) OF "FAMILY LAW ACT"

Item	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
26. TOTALS: VALUE OF EXCLUDED PROPERTY, (TOTAL 4)	$0.00	$0.00

SUMMARY

	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
TOTAL 2: Debts and Other Liabilities (item 23)	$7,204.72	$337,458.60
TOTAL 3: Value of Property Owned on the Date of Marriage (item 24)	$0.00	$50,000.00
TOTAL 4: Value of Excluded Property (item 26)	$0.00	$0.00
TOTAL 5: (TOTAL 2 + TOTAL 3 + TOTAL 4)	$7,204.72	$387,458.60

	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
TOTAL 1: Value of Property Owned on Valuation Date (item 22)	$380,287.25	$759,541.61
TOTAL 5: (from above)	$7,204.72	$387,458.60
TOTAL 6: NET FAMILY PROPERTY (Subtract: TOTAL 1 minus TOTAL 5)	$373,082.53	$372,083.01

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS Applicant Pays Respondent: $499.76 Respondent Pays Applicant: $0

Talin Karajian v. Ara Karajian, 2012 ONSC 4921

Case Summary