Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-421609 DATE: 20240422 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Feng Wang, Applicant AND: Min Li, Respondent

BEFORE: Schabas J.

COUNSEL: Feng Wang, self-represented Min Li, self-represented

HEARD: March 11-15, 25-26

Reasons for Judgment

Overview

[1] The Applicant, Feng Wang, married the Respondent, Min Li, on May 8, 2013. The parties separated on September 13, 2017. Three months later, in December 2017, the Applicant commenced this proceeding seeking a divorce, equalization of net family property and a declaration that the Respondent held title to the matrimonial home in trust for both parties. The parties have been litigating this proceeding since that time.

[2] The Respondent’s position is that that she was the sole financial contributor to the marriage, and that the Applicant emotionally and physically abused her during the marriage. She seeks, among other things, a restraining order against the Applicant, an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and an unequal distribution of any net family property, should there be any, and dismissal of the Applicant’s claims. The Respondent also seeks damages from the Applicant for intentional infliction of mental and emotional suffering caused by the Applicant.

[3] The divorce was severed from the corollary issues in 2022. In October 2023 the Applicant obtained leave to amend his Application to seek spousal support, but no amended pleading was filed. The corollary issues were tried before me in March 2024.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the Applicant’s claim for equalization and, to the extent it was asserted at trial, his claim for support. I grant the relief sought by the Respondent, and order the Applicant to pay the Respondent $75,000 in damages for his abusive tortious conduct.

Background

[5] The Applicant, Wang, immigrated to Canada from China in 2008 with his first wife and their daughter. He divorced his first wife in 2011. As he told the Respondent after they met, and confirmed to the Court, Wang’s first wife took virtually all of their assets as part of the divorce settlement in the fall of 2011.

[6] Wang met Min Li online in the fall of 2012. Li lived in China where she had a successful architectural and design business and owned several properties, some of which provided income to her. Li had a daughter from a previous marriage which had ended ten years earlier. In late 2012, Wang was 44 and Li was 39. Li’s daughter was born in 1999.

[7] Wang travelled to China to meet Li and they agreed to marry. Li was in the process of selling her business and it was agreed that she would move to Canada with her daughter to live with Wang in Toronto. Li sold her business in early 2013 for 5,000,000 RMB (Chinese Yuan), and also received repayment of a loan she had advanced to the purchaser of 3,800,000 RMB. Through a number of transactions devised by Wang and Li to avoid legal limits on currency leaving China, this money, 8,800,000 RMB, or approximately CDN$1,200,000 was transferred to a joint account in both of the parties’ names in Canada in the summer of 2013.

[8] The parties married on May 8, 2013. Li and her daughter then moved to Canada to live with Wang.

[9] In the fall of 2013, Li bought a home in Richmond Hill for $2,050,000 (the “matrimonial home”). She paid $800,000 as a downpayment and obtained a mortgage for $1,250,000. Title to the house was in Li’s name only. Li also used funds to buy another property in 2013, which was rented out until it was sold in 2015 for a profit.

[10] Neither party had regular, if any, employment during the marriage. According to Li, when they married Wang quit a job he had in a factory manufacturing garage doors earning about $30,000 per year. Wang, on the other hand, said that he was an investment fund manager prior to the marriage and that this continued until 2017. However, I also heard that Wang received government benefits and the couple split, for tax purposes, income from the rental property Li owned in Canada between 2013 and 2015. There is no evidence supporting Wang’s assertion that he was earning any other income during the marriage.

[11] The marriage ended when Li left the matrimonial home on September 13, 2017. She lived in hotels and a shelter for a few months before returning to live in the matrimonial home. Criminal charges, including assault, pointing a firearm and uttering threats, were laid against Wang on or about October 7, 2017. He was released on a recognizance that required him to have no contact with Li. He was charged with breaching the recognizance in November 2017.

[12] Li then returned to the matrimonial home where she continues to live. The criminal charges were withdrawn in 2018 when Wang signed a peace bond to have no contact with Li for 12 months. A restraining order against Wang in this proceeding was initially granted by Faieta J. on June 21, 2021. A further order was made by Shore J. on July 27, 2021, which remains in effect.

[13] The litigation has been protracted. At times, both parties have had counsel, but at trial they were self-represented. Both testified and addressed the court through a Mandarin interpreter. Appraisal evidence was heard, virtually, from China in Mandarin. These circumstances created challenges. The parties were unfamiliar with many basic court procedures and rules of evidence. Translation issues also came up from time to time which had to be clarified for the record. As the trial judge, I was required to take an active role in ensuring that evidence was properly provided by both parties, and that I received a full and fair account of the issues in dispute from each of them. At the end of the day, I am satisfied that both parties were able to present their case effectively to the Court.

Issues

[14] Wang and Li both, helpfully, provided signed written opening statements which set out their positions and became a useful framework for the trial. I marked those statements as exhibits, and, with some limitations, [1] treated them as evidence along with the parties’ updated financial disclosure forms filed pursuant to Rules 13 and 13.1 of the Family Law Rules. Based on them and the evidence at trial, the issues in dispute were:

(a) Whether there should be an equalization payment to Wang from any net family property;

(b) Whether Wang is entitled to spousal support from Li; and

(c) Whether Li is entitled to damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental suffering.

Equalization

(a) Credibility

[15] The evidence of Wang and Li diverged on virtually all important issues in the trial. Wang asserted that he contributed large sums of money towards the purchase of the home. He claimed he was occupied managing the “family” investments during the marriage, suggesting he contributed to them and to an increase in their value. He disputed Li’s claim in her Answer that he had removed valuable items from the home, asserting that Li has wrongly retained them, and he denied being abusive towards her.

[16] Li took issue with all these points. Her position was that Wang came to the marriage with nothing, that she had all the assets, bought the matrimonial home and supported them both throughout the marriage and that at separation her assets had decreased in value, aside form the matrimonial home. She continued to claim that Wang had removed valuable items from the home after she fled in September 2017 which he failed to return, and testified that Wang was abusive to her.

[17] Where Wang’s evidence differs from Li’s, I prefer Li’s evidence. As I address below, Wang’s testimony was often inconsistent with contemporaneous records, including correspondence and third-party records. He was often evasive in responding to straightforward questions, conveniently selective in his memory, and gave evidence that was demonstrably false. Li’s evidence, in contrast, was responsive and straightforward and was supported on all material issues by contemporaneous records.

(b) The matrimonial home and sources of funds

[18] One area of common ground between the parties is that in order to get money out of China, Li had to avoid Chinese laws limiting the amount she could remove from the country. To achieve this, Wang and Li arranged to transfer sums of money to friends and family, who could each send funds outside China, including to Hong Kong. These funds were ultimately deposited into bank accounts in Toronto and used to purchase the matrimonial home and other assets. Both the Applicant and the Respondent provided flow charts and supporting documents on this issue. They disagree over the source of those funds.

[19] The evidence is clear, however, that all funds came from Li, and that Wang’s assertions that he provided funds are unsupported and false.

[20] Wang asserted in his direct examination, and throughout the trial, that he provided 8,800,000 RMB from his accounts but did not say, or show me, where that money came from. Instead, his evidence was focussed on where the money went – to the many people to whom it was initially transferred and how it eventually ended up in banks in Canada. Even on this issue he left gaps in his explanations, and some of it was contradicted by documentary evidence.

[21] The first bank record Wang relied on, for example, was a page showing both deposits and withdrawals in and out of a Bank of China account in his name, yet all of Wang’s evidence-in-chief was directed to the withdrawals, or transfers, to others made in March 2013, leading to its removal to Canada. However, Wang did not address the 4,170,000 RMB deposited into the account earlier, in January 2013, and which was the source of the funds to be transferred; indeed, he redacted information on the bank statement about where that money had come from.

[22] When asked at the beginning of his cross-examination about the source of the 4,170,000 RMB, Wang said he could not remember, saying it was ten or eleven years ago. This response was not credible. Wang had a detailed memory of everything else that he explained on the page and about the transactions. These were large deposits – indeed the only deposits into a new account - and were funds he claims he contributed to the marriage. Further, when asked what was redacted, he said he could not remember but said it had nothing to do with Li. As I discuss below, this was untrue.

[23] Similarly, on the second account record relied on by Wang, an account with ICBC in China, in his direct examination he again only focussed on withdrawals in March 2013. When asked in cross-examination about the prior deposit into this new account in January 2013 of 4,630,000 RMB, he said he could not recall where it came from, and he had again redacted the account number from which the money came, stating it was not relevant. Again, this was untrue.

[24] Li requested that unredacted copies of those bank statements be produced, which I ordered.

[25] When Wang’s cross-examination resumed the following day, Wang produced the unredacted records. He agreed, with some hesitation and reluctance, that both of the accounts which received the large deposits, totalling 8,800,000 RMB, had been opened in December 2024, in China, on his behalf, as he was in Toronto. Wang claimed he could not recall who opened one of them, but said a younger brother opened the other one.

[26] Li’s evidence, and the evidence of an expert in forensic accounting whom she called, Matthew Krofchick, explained the source of the funds. They showed that the deposits came from funds obtained from the sale of Li’s company in China and the repayment of a loan by her to the purchaser, Wei Min Zhang (“Zhang”).

[27] It was clearly established by Li’s evidence, supported by agreements, Chinese government records and other contemporaneous documents, that Li sold her architecture and design business to Zhang for 5,000,000 RMB in January 2013. Zhang also repaid to Li a loan of 3,800,000 RMB at the time of the sale. The total amount is 8,800,000 RMB. The unredacted bank records showed that the deposits into Wang’s Bank of China account of 4,170,000 RMB came from accounts belonging to Zhang and his brother, Xiaomin Zhang. The deposit of 4,630,000 RMB into Wang’s ICBC account came from Xiaomin Zhang’s account. These transactions occurred in January 2013, prior to Wang making any withdrawals or transfers to friends and relatives. There is also an acknowledgement of these payments having been made, signed by Zhang and Li, dated January 17, 2013.

[28] Wang did not challenge the evidence of where the deposits came from; rather, he suggested in cross-examination, using some of the documents from the transaction, that Li had only been paid 3,000,000 RMB for her company. However, as Li explained, the paid-up capital for her company was 3,000,000 RMB, and to increase that amount would have created additional administrative procedures in China. Li referred to a letter she sent to the Chinese tax authorities dated December 27, 2021, which, though not translated in writing, was reviewed at the trial which clearly explained that she was paid 5,000,000 RMB for the company, and that she was repaid a loan of 3,800,000 RMB. In addition, she referred to a document recording her payment of 400,000 RMB in tax, being 20% of her profit of 2,000,000 RMB on the sale of the company (the difference between her paid up capital and the sale price).

[29] In his cross-examination of Li, Wang suggested that Zhang’s signature on the acknowledgment was different from that found on the corporate records. However, Li said she was present when Zhang signed the acknowledgement and Wang called no evidence to support his assertion that the signatures were different. It is not for me to embark on my own assessment of signatures in Chinese characters. Moreover, even if they are different, this does little to undermine Li’s evidence that funds which were deposited to Wang’s account and which, it is admitted, funded the purchase of the matrimonial home, came from Li. [2]

[30] The details of the transfers of funds to others to avoid Chinese currency control laws were not reviewed in detail, nor was that necessary. Li stated that after the transfers to others, the money was deposited into her existing Changjiang Securities account and to accounts in Hong Kong and in Canada.

[31] In August 2013, Li had well over 8,000,000 RMB in a trading account with Changjiang Securities. Li showed, through contemporaneous banking records, that on August 7 and August 12, 2013, she transferred 3,670,000 RMB and 5,000,000 RMB, respectively, to Wang’s Bank of China account. Then, on August 21, 2013, 5,000,000 RMB was transferred to four individuals’ accounts before being converted to CDN$829,985.00 and deposited into an HSBC account in Toronto held jointly by Wang and Li. Two days later, $754,000 was transferred to a law firm in Toronto to be used to close the purchase of the matrimonial home. Other funds for the deposit of $100,000 had come from Li’s TD account ($50,000) and from the parties’ joint HSBC account ($50,000). There is also evidence that Li advanced another $50,000 to pay land transfer tax and other fees associated with the purchase.

[32] In my view, there is no evidence to support Wang’s assertion that he also contributed money towards the purchase of the matrimonial home. The funds withdrawn from his accounts in March 2013 were from Li’s sale of her business and loan repayment. Wang’s position is contradicted by his own documents and is inconsistent with his evidence that he had no assets when his previous marriage ended a year earlier, and I reject it.

[33] Further, although Wang claimed that he was earning approximately $400,000 per year prior to the marriage as a financial trader or “fund manager”, and contributed funds to what he described as the family “pool” of money, he produced no evidence to support these assertions when he presented his case. Nor was there any evidence that he ever contributed any money during the marriage.

[34] The matrimonial home was purchased by Li for $2,050,000. Li obtained a mortgage for $1,250,000. All funds for the purchase of the matrimonial home were provided by Li, who was named as the sole owner on title.

[35] Li led evidence, supported by contemporaneous records, and unchallenged by Wang, that she paid all property tax on the matrimonial home during the period of cohabitation from 2013 to 2017, totalling $44,453.40. She also made all mortgage payments during that period totalling $101,216.33. Accordingly, during the four years in which the couple resided together in the matrimonial home, Li paid all taxes and mortgage payments in the total amount of $145,669.73.

[36] In light of the lack of contribution to the purchase price of the home by Wang and his lack of financial contribution to the marriage or the costs of maintaining the matrimonial home, there is no basis to find that Li held title to the home in trust for Wang.

(c) The matrimonial home - valuation

[37] As a result of my conclusion above, the relevant date for valuing the matrimonial home is the date of separation, September 13, 2017. Wang led no evidence of the value of the home on that date; instead, he filed, on consent, an appraisal which valued the property on February 21, 2024, at $3,800,000.

[38] Li’s appraiser, Emil Grossman, was unavailable to testify, and so she led no expert evidence of the value of the home on either the date of separation or today. Her Financial Statement listed the value of the matrimonial home on the date of separation as $2,800,000, a figure she had obtained from her appraiser. Wang disputed this figure, asserting a value of $3,800,000 on the date of separation in his Financial Statement; but, as I have said, he filed no evidence of the value on that date.

[39] In his cross-examination of Li, Wang produced an appraisal for the matrimonial home obtained by a mortgage company for financing purposes in November 2017. Li was familiar with it. That appraisal valued the property as of November 6, 2017 at $2,890,000. However, this was two months following the date of separation. Li did not agree that this figure should be preferred over the appraisal she had obtained from Mr. Grossman and relied on in making financial disclosure.

[40] Wang, as the Applicant, bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide evidence of the value of the matrimonial home on the separation date. However, both parties have an obligation to make financial disclosure. Li has done so and, effectively, made an admission that the matrimonial home had a value of $2,800,000 on September 13, 2017 – an increase of 37% in value, or $750,000, in four years since the purchase in 2013. This value was taken from an appraisal Li obtained and is close to the value contained in the appraisal obtained shortly after the separation by a third-party lender. Having regard to the soaring prices of homes in the Toronto region over the past decade, the value put forward by Li of $2,800,000 is reasonable and I accept it for the purpose of calculating any equalization order.

(d) Other net family property

[41] Wang seeks equalization from the alleged growth in value of Li’s income properties in China from May 8, 2013, to the date of separation in September, 2017. He also claims, as part of his equalization calculation, a 50% share of the rental income Li received from those properties during the marriage. Wang also appears to seek at least a portion of the profit from an investment property Li bought and sold in Canada during the marriage as well as an interest in funds contained in bank and investment accounts on the date of separation.

[42] These claims must fail. Wang made no contribution to the net family property at the outset of the marriage or during the marriage. Li’s evidence, which I accept, is that, aside from the matrimonial home, her assets declined in value during the marriage. Accordingly, there is no gain to equalize.

Li’s Chinese properties

[43] With respect to Li’s income properties in China, Wang led evidence from two appraisers in China. One was Ms. Xia Cheng, who was listed as the co-author of a report filed by Wang. The other was Mr. Renqing Li, the head of the company which produced the report, and who was Ms. Cheng’s boss.

[44] The report asserted that Li’s Chinese properties had increased by over 10,000,000 RMB, from 17,948,000 RMB on May 8, 2013, to 28,581,700 RMB on September 14, 2017. This report also stated that the rental prices for the properties during this period was 5,263,000 RMB. However, the report contained no meaningful analysis or explanations for its conclusions. No sales of comparable properties were cited nor were rental incomes provided for comparable properties or even the properties themselves. [3]

[45] Ms. Cheng had little, if any, knowledge of the properties or even the subject matter of the report. She said that a team had worked on the report. She was quite unfamiliar with the report and repeatedly answered questions by saying, in effect, “it is in the report”, although she took no steps to say where the report would provide answers or explanations.

[46] As Wang asked Ms. Cheng very few questions, I intervened to assist him in adducing her evidence. When she kept responding by saying that I should refer to the report, I excluded her and told Wang in her absence that Ms. Cheng must explain her report if I was to give her evidence, and the report, any weight. Wang understood this, but the quality of Ms. Cheng’s evidence did not improve, as seen by her complete inability to provide any explanation of how they determined rental prices, saying simply that they followed the “standard procedures.”

[47] Neither Ms. Cheng nor Mr. Li had, prior to trial, signed the expert declaration required by Rule 20.2 of the Family Law Rules, despite reminders to do so by Kristjanson J. in her Trial Management Endorsement on October 18, 2023. I permitted Ms. Cheng and Mr. Li to file the declarations at the outset of the trial. As the Respondent said she had not prepared to cross-examine them because of the failure to comply with the Rules, I adjourned Li’s cross-examination of Ms. Cheng to the following day so that the Respondent would have time to prepare. However, when I told Ms. Cheng she would have to return the following day, she refused. I emphasized to her that she was expected to return, and also explained to Wang that he must make sure she re-attends.

[48] On the following day, Ms. Cheng did not appear. Her boss, Mr. Renqing Li testified. He said that he had been told that Ms. Cheng was in the hospital but had no details. I told Mr. Wang that he should obtain some evidence that Ms. Cheng was in the hospital and unable to return in order to explain her absence. None was ever provided during the trial, even though the trial continued for several more days. Only following the conclusion of the trial did I receive a hospital note documenting some treatment of Ms. Cheng on March 12, 2024. Given how weak Ms. Cheng’s evidence was in-chief, however, the Respondent was not prejudiced by Ms. Cheng’s failure to re-attend for cross-examination.

[49] Mr. Li’s knowledge of the report was as poor as Ms. Cheng’s evidence. He was not even an author of the report. He did agree in cross-examination, however, that the conclusion on rental income was based on an hypothesis that all properties were rented. He also said the inspection of the properties was limited due to the pandemic.

[50] Wang’s appraisal evidence was contradicted by the expert appraisal evidence called by Li. Her appraiser, Liang Zhu, was of the view that the properties had declined in value between May 8, 2013 and September 14, 2017, from 30,907,041 RMB to 25,673,214 RMB.

[51] Although Zhu’s report also suffered from a lack of detail, Zhu had at least actually done the work and was familiar with the properties. He was able to confirm that many of Li’s units were vacant as her properties were in an older area of the city that was in decline. This was due, he said, to a shift in commercial activity to a newer area of the city, and supports the conclusion that the properties in fact declined in value, which was not challenged on cross-examination.

[52] In addition, Li produced records from China showing that a comparable property to one owned by her had been sold in 2010 for much more than the value attributed to her property by Ms. Cheng and Mr. Li. This suggests that Wang’s appraisers undervalued the properties in 2013, leading to an increase in value during the marriage. Li confronted Mr. Li with the evidence of the 2010 sale in cross-examination, and he could not give a satisfactory explanation for the 2013 value. This further undermines the Applicant’s report which attributed a much lower value to the properties in 2013 than the Report prepared by Zhu for the Respondent.

[53] Accordingly, I find Li’s appraisal evidence more reliable than the unreliable and uninformed appraisal evidence presented by the Applicant that the properties increased in value during the marriage. Rather, I accept that the properties did not increase in value but likely declined in value. I give no weight to the evidence about rental income presented by the Applicant’s appraisers, which is hypothetical and unsupported by any evidence.

[54] Accordingly, Wang’s claims contained in his Net Family Property Statement that he is entitled to $1,012,657 reflecting an increase in the value of Li’s properties in China, and that he is entitled to $501,238 relating to alleged rental income, are not accepted.

Cash and securities

[55] Wang also claims entitlement to a half interest in funds held in banks and investments at the date of separation, his half interest totalling approximately $750,000. He refers to some of these accounts as “family common fund pool.” However, all the money came from Li. This notion of a “family common fund pool” is a term made up by Wang and used by him in this litigation to assert unfounded claims.

[56] I accept Li’s evidence that the value of her cash and securities declined in value over the course of the marriage between 2013 and 2017. Neither party was employed during that time. They were living on Li’s savings and income she obtained from an investment property she owned between 2013 and 2015 and, possibly, income from Li’s Chinese properties.

[57] Wang makes other unsupported claims. He asserted equal ownership of the income property the couple purchased in Toronto in 2013 and sold in 2015. Wang’s financial documents claimed a 50% share in a $400,000 profit from the sale of the property.

[58] As Li’s evidence showed, however, the property was purchased for $626,000 – with Li paying $225,000 as a downpayment and funding the rest with a mortgage from HSBC of $400,000. The title documents show that Li and Wang owned the property as tenants in common with Li holding a 99% interest and Wang a 1% interest. At least some of the income from that property was attributed to Wang for income tax purposes in 2014 and 2015. The property was sold in 2015 for $840,000, resulting in, at most, a profit of $214,000.

[59] Wang maintained that the reason for the 99%-1% ownership split was due to the fact that he did not speak English, but in the next breath said it was because it was beneficial to Li in advancing her immigration status. None of this was explained by Wang.

[60] I conclude that there was no increase in the value of Li’s financial assets over the course of the marriage. To the contrary, the value of her cash and securities declined. Additionally, Li’s debt level significantly increased over the course of the marriage, from approximately $950,000 to about $2,592,000. As she notes, supported by her bank and investment account records, aside from the purchase of the matrimonial home, her assets were depleted in order to support herself and Wang. Accordingly, there is no basis for an equalization payment to Wang arising from the cash and securities held by Li during the marriage.

Personal property

[61] Wang also seeks the return, or recognition of the value of items of personal property - a Rolex watch and a piece of Jade - which Wang claims are being kept by Li. The issue of the possession of the Rolex watch, jade, and other items such as jewellery, antiques and artwork valued at between $150,000 and $187,000, was first raised by Li in her Answer filed in April 2018. She claimed that her belongings, including these items, were removed by Wang from the matrimonial home after she fled the home fearing for her safety on September 13, 2017. She requested an Order that these items be returned to her.

[62] Wang’s Reply claimed that the Rolex was purchased by him before the marriage and that he had accumulated the collection of jade, art and antiques, which he said were in Li’s possession. Further, Wang claimed that these items, other than the Rolex watch, were purchased during the marriage from the “family capital pool”, suggesting that he had contributed to their purchase.

[63] Again, I prefer Li’s evidence over Wang’s claims.

[64] At trial, Li explained that when she entered the home on October 8, 2017, after Wang was arrested, she found many things gone, including art, antiques, jewellery, the jade and the Rolex watch. Also removed were some guns. Li notified the police right away. The following day, after Wang was released, Li went to a shelter where she stayed for over 40 days. She returned home after Wang was arrested for breaching his recognizance which prohibited him from contacting her.

[65] Wang admitted that the guns were confiscated from him at his brother’s home, supporting Li’s claim that Wang had removed their valuable personal property. This is also supported by WeChat messages sent by Wang to Li in late September 2017 in which he said, among other things: “about the stuff that I have packed, I have already stored them in a safe place”, and “What is more, I have transferred all the guns and bullets, nothing left at home!”. As happened when he was confronted about messages regarding money, Wang initially denied the messages, then said he did not recall them, and then said the message about removing the guns and bullets was true. His denials were not credible.

[66] Wang’s statement that he purchased the Rolex watch before the marriage was unsupported by any records from him. The only records he produced were redacted copies of documents containing some very limited information about the watch, one of which had his name handwritten on it. Wang refused to disclose the serial number for the watch, which he had redacted from the documents he produced, and he would not identify the store where he bought it, claiming it would be “almost impossible to do so”, asserting only that it was in “a remote area” in the west end of Toronto.

[67] Li’s evidence was more helpful and reliable. She produced a copy of a bank draft for $32,000 payable to Damiani Jewellers Ltd. dated December 10, 2013, which she testified was the payment for the Rolex watch. This was well after the couple married. Li also produced a business card for Damiani Jewellers showing it was located in Woodbridge which, as Li put it, is in the west end of the northern part of the Toronto area and west of where they lived in Richmond Hill. When I asked her why she purchased the watch, Li said it was an investment, and that many people in China like Rolex watches. She said it was never worn and was kept at home. Wang did not challenge this evidence.

[68] As to the jade, all Wang could say about its value was that he had sent a photograph of it to a friend in China who told him it was “huge” and worth approximately $40,000. Of course, this is inadmissible hearsay, and I cannot put any weight on it.

[69] Li explained that the art and antiques were collected by her as she was an architect and designer in China and had a particular interest in these possessions. Li was very specific about missing items of jewellery, some of which she said she had before her marriage, including a pendant which was a gift from her grandmother. This is implicitly accepted by Wang whose financial forms and evidence are focussed solely on the watch and jade, or at least a 50% share in them. He has not referred to the art, antiques, jewellery or other possessions.

[70] Wang also claimed a 50% interest in a Toyota vehicle; however, as Li pointed out, the car was leased by her in 2016 and returned to the dealer in 2017.

[71] In sum, I find that the personal property in issue, including the Rolex watch, jade, antiques and art, were purchased by Li, with her money, or inherited by Li, and belong to her. I also find that Wang removed those possessions from the matrimonial home and order that they be returned to Li within 30 days of the release of these Reasons.

(e) Conclusions on equalization

[72] In light of my findings that all property other than the matrimonial home belongs to Li and did not increase in value over the course of the marriage and is not subject to equalization, the only asset to be addressed is the value of the matrimonial home. I have found the value of the home on the date of separation to be $2,800,000. Li’s Financial Statement indicates that the amount of the mortgage on the home on that date was $951,747.53, resulting in equity of $1,848,252.47. Splitting this in half would result in an equalization payment to Wang of $924,126.23.

[73] Li submits, however, that there should be no equalization payment. She notes, as I have found, that aside from the matrimonial home her financial assets decreased significantly during the marriage, from about $2,400,000 in 2013 to just over $1,000,000 in 2017, and her debt also markedly increased, from about $950,000 to about $2,600,000. This was due to her supporting the family and paying all expenses during the marriage. Overall, even when the increase in the value of the matrimonial home is included, there is still a significant decline in net family property.

[74] Section 5(6) of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 (the “FLA” or the “Act”), states:

The court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, having regard to,

(a) a spouse’s failure to disclose to the other spouse debts or other liabilities existing at the date of the marriage;

(b) the fact that debts or other liabilities claimed in reduction of a spouse’s net family property were incurred recklessly or in bad faith;

(c) the part of a spouse’s net family property that consists of gifts made by the other spouse;

(d) a spouse’s intentional or reckless depletion of his or her net family property;

(e) the fact that the amount a spouse would otherwise receive under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is disproportionately large in relation to a period of cohabitation that is less than five years;

(f) the fact that one spouse has incurred a disproportionately larger amount of debts or other liabilities than the other spouse for the support of the family;

(g) a written agreement between the spouses that is not a domestic contract; or

(h) any other circumstance relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property.

[75] Section 5(6) sets a “’high threshold of unconscionability” that must be established if a court is to depart from the presumptive equalization of net family property. As Harvison-Young J.A. stated recently in Madi v. King, 2023 ONCA 443 at para. 19:

The high threshold of unconscionability that is required under s. 5(6) to depart from the presumptive equal sharing of value makes clear that the intent of the legislation is “not to alleviate every situation that may be viewed as in some ways unfair or inequitable”: Ward v. Ward, 2012 ONCA 462, 111 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 25. The Act’s scheme for property sharing upon marriage breakdown is intended to promote predictability and thereby discourage litigation. If courts were to deviate from the scheme of the Act wherever it gave rise to an unfair result, this would have the undesirable effect of encouraging parties to litigate their claims: Ward, at para. 25.

[76] In my view, having regard to the factors in s. 5(6) of the Act, an equalization payment of close to $1,000,000 to Wang resulting from the appreciation in value of the matrimonial home would not only be unfair and inequitable, it would be unconscionable. In particular, subsections 5(6) (e), (f), (g) and (h) all support an unequal distribution.

Short period of cohabitation

[77] The period of cohabitation was less than five years.

Disproportionate debts and liabilities

[78] During the period of cohabitation, Wang lived well, in a large home, all at considerable expense to Li, who paid for everything. It is an understatement to say that Li paid a “disproportionately larger amount” to support the family including, as she said, increasing her debt load.

Prenuptial Declaration

[79] Wang signed a Prenuptial Declaration on March 1, 2013, prior to the marriage, stating, translated, that Li would have “sole ownership and full right to disposal of property and assets under her name before marriage and after marriage including joint property and assets (property cash etc)”. The Declaration also stated that “Under any and every circumstance, Min Li has the sole and absolute right to above noted property and assets.”

[80] Although this Declaration was not signed by Li or witnessed, and therefore it is not an enforceable domestic contract pursuant to s. 55(1) of the FLA, this does not make the Declaration invalid or irrelevant: Crawford v. Crawford (1997), 33 R.F.L (4th) 381 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 9-11. In my view, as I discuss below, the Declaration is “a written agreement between the spouses that is not a domestic contract” on which Li relied to her detriment. It is therefore relevant to the assessment of unconscionability under s. 5(6) (g) of the Act.

[81] Wang did not dispute signing this Declaration, or that the words meant, as I find, that he gave up all rights to any interest in any assets of Li, including their joint assets after marriage. However, as he testified at trial, Wang’s position is that he was drunk when he signed the Declaration as he had learned that Li had removed her contraceptive IUD and he was celebrating the possibility of becoming a father again. On this basis, he sought to avoid the consequences of the Declaration.

[82] There are several reasons why I do not accept Wang’s attempt to repudiate the Declaration.

[83] Li testified that she would not have married Wang if he had not signed the Declaration, a position which made good sense in light of their very different economic positions.

[84] Wang admitted at trial that when he divorced his previous wife in 2011, he was left with virtually nothing. This is supported by the divorce agreement he provided to Li and text messages to her to this effect. Consequently, Li had good reason to wish to protect her assets entering a relationship where she had all the money and Wang had, at most, $6,000.

[85] Li became very upset when questioning Wang on this issue, asserting, as she later testified, that Wang had repeatedly promised that he would take care of her and her daughter in Canada and not make any claim on her assets, and that he would sign a prenuptial agreement to that effect. She identified two text communications from Wang in December 2012 in which he said he would sign such a document. In one he stated that “before we get married, I will sign a premarital property certificate, you as my wife has 100% right for the premarital property.” In the other he stated, “after we get married, I will sign a premarital property certificate, you as my wife has 100% right.”

[86] Wang denied these text messages when cross-examined by Li, but then admitted others at the time, or parts of others, such as a reference to travel arrangements but not, in the same sentence, a reference to having nothing but $6,000 and his “shorts” when he left his previous marriage. Wang’s denials of sending the text messages are simply not credible.

[87] In cross-examination, although Wang agreed that he had nothing when he married Li, he then claimed that he owned, indirectly, many properties in China. When asked repeatedly to explain this assertion, his evidence became somewhat incoherent, stating on one hand that he gave all of his assets to his previous wife, while on the other hand saying properties in China were held for him by a younger brother, whose name he refused to give, and then were sold to provide his alleged financial contribution to the marriage with Li.

[88] Li said this was the first time she had ever heard Wang’s claim of holding property in China. Indeed, Wang’s claim was inconsistent with his financial disclosure throughout the litigation in which he never mentioned any such assets. Nor did he lead any evidence to support this assertion at trial. Wang’s effort to avoid the effect of the Declaration might have been supported if Li had failed to disclose assets, but it is certainly not triggered by Wang’s failure to disclose: FLA, s. 56(4) (a).

[89] Finally, Wang’s account that he signed the Declaration when he was drunk because he was happy after learning about the prospect of having children with Li on March 1, 2013, does not make sense. Li had the procedure to remove her IUD in January 2013, and Wang was aware of it then, as seen in texts and emails between them at the time. When confronted on this inconsistency, Wang had no explanation.

[90] The intent of the Declaration is clear. It was a promise made by Wang in order to persuade Li to marry him. In reliance on it, she did so, moved with her daughter to Canada, and transferred substantial assets to Toronto where she purchased the matrimonial home and supported Wang until the separation in September 2017. Wang’s promise supports a conclusion that equalization of assets at the end of their marriage resulting in any payment to him would be unconscionable.

Other circumstances: dishonesty, abuse and estoppel

[91] During Li’s testimony, Wang indicated that he wished to call a witness to say he had, or has, properties in China and to testify about his previous work there, presumably in finance. Wang also said he wished to testify again about these issues. At the conclusion of Li’s case, I denied Wang’s request to call such evidence in reply as it was neither pleaded nor disclosed prior to trial. Further, no documentary support had been produced or presented on the issue and, as I have noted, the proposed evidence was contrary to the financial disclosure Wang had made over the more than six years of this litigation. Either his financial information, which he had relied on at the outset of the trial was false, or the evidence he wished to call was false.

[92] Wang also lied to the court about the funding of the purchase of the home, as all costs related its acquisition, financing and maintenance were borne by the Respondent.

[93] Recently, in Cohen v. Cohen, 2024 ONCA 114, the Court of Appeal found that no equalization payment should be made from the proceeds of the sale of a matrimonial home where the respondent had failed to make any financial disclosure. The trial judge had found that the respondent was in debt and had no net family property due to his gambling addiction. As the Court of Appeal explained at para. 27:

In the circumstances of this appeal, given the total failure of financial disclosure by the respondent and the evidence that, because of the respondent’s secrecy about his finances during the marriage, the appellant was not in a position to know anything about his finances, we find it appropriate to make an order that no equalization payment is owing.

[94] It seems to me that a party who provides false financial disclosure, and persists in advancing false claims, is not entitled to better treatment than someone who makes no disclosure. Additionally, the evidence of the Respondent is that Wang was regularly demanding money from Li and seeking control over her assets during the marriage, threatening her if she did not agree. This gives rise to the circumstance identified by the Court of Appeal in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476 at para. 140, that “[i]f the abuse allegation involves financial abuse, there may be an order for unequal division of net family property.”

[95] The concept of proprietary estoppel also supports Li’s position that there should be no equalization payment to Wang. Proprietary estoppel is a principle of equity which arises when a person is harmed because they did or refrained from doing something having reasonably relied on a promise or representation by someone else. It protects that reasonable reliance in order to avoid the “unfairness or injustice that would result… if the other were permitted to break her word and insist on her strict legal rights”: Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 754 at paras. 15-16.

[96] The application of this principle to avoid unfairness or injustice includes circumstances of unconscionability. Indeed, prior to Cowper-Smith, the Court of Appeal required the higher test of unconscionability to invoke proprietary estoppel: Clarke v. Johnson, 2014 ONCA 237, 371 D.L.R. (4th) 618, at para. 52. Further, although the concept of proprietary estoppel arose to address interests in land, or real property, the English courts have expanded it to other forms of property, and the Supreme Court has taken an expansive and flexible approach to the concept, albeit not deciding specifically whether it protects other forms of property: Cowper-Smith at paras. 18-22.

[97] Given the equitable nature of proprietary estoppel, and the context of this case in which the issue of equalization arises solely from the ownership of real property purchased by Li alone, in her name and with her money, I find that Wang’s prenuptial Declaration and Li’s reliance on it gives rise to the application of proprietary estoppel as it would be unconscionable for Wang to avoid the consequences of his promise and override Li’s reasonable expectations.

[98] Accordingly, I conclude that an equalization payment of any kind to Wang in this case would be unconscionable and I decline to order one.

Spousal support

[99] The Applicant did not seek spousal support in his Application when it was commenced in 2017. However, as I noted early in these Reasons, on October 18, 2023, Kristjanson J. granted Wang leave to amend his Application to claim spousal support. Li was also permitted to amend her Reply to respond to the claim for support. Kristjanson J. also ordered production from both parties regarding their respective incomes and ordered production of materials relevant to imputation of income for both parties. This included production by Wang of any evidence he intended to rely on to establish that the marriage caused him disadvantage, and of his efforts to become self-sufficient since the date of separation.

[100] Wang did not amend his Application within 30 days of October 18, 2023 as required by Kristjanson J., as set out in the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form, or at all. Accordingly, there is no valid claim before me for support, and I do not need to address this issue.

[101] I recognize, however, that Wang has been self-represented in recent months and might not have appreciated the need to formally amend his Application. Indeed, the parties did make limited production to each other on this issue and Wang has pursued his claim for spousal support at trial.

[102] In his affidavit submitted as part of his Opening Statement, Wang specifies that he seeks spousal support of $1,749 per month for 60 months. He calculates this by taking his income of $733 per month from Ontario Works, and imputing income to Ms. Li of $18,226.83 per month arising from the alleged rental income from her Chinese properties.

[103] Wang claims that after he was arrested and left the matrimonial home, he lost control of his property and had no capital to “continue investing.” Of course, as I have noted, there is no evidence that Wang ever engaged in investment activities, or that he had any of his own funds to invest. Following the separation six and a half years ago, Wang has studied English and has lived on payments from Ontario Works. The tax information he has provided shows income in 2020, 2021 and 2022 of about $733 per month, or $8,900 per year, from social assistance payments. He also filed records showing his attendance at English language classes.

[104] Wang said that he has been loaned over $175,000 from relatives and friends to pay legal expenses. Recently, Wang was able to pay Li over $34,000 in costs in this proceeding. Although Wang stated in his direct evidence that he continued to be a fund manager until 2017, Wang agreed in cross-examination that since the marriage in 2013 he has not looked for a job. Wang has also not looked for a job since the end of the marriage.

[105] Li testified that at the time the marriage ended she had been accepted into a Bachelor of Community Health program at Seneca College commencing in September 2017. She was excited about this as she had dreamed of going to university after not being able to do so in China. But she withdrew from the program in September 2017 because of the stress caused by the breakdown in the marriage.

[106] In 2020 and 2022 Li had limited consulting income – about $2,800 in 2020 and about $27,000 in 2022. She says she made no money in 2021 or 2023. Neither party provided me with income information for 2017, 2018 or 2019, but I accept that neither of them was employed. Recently, Li has become employed as a spa attendant, earning about $1,700 bi-weekly.

[107] The legal framework for determining a claim for spousal support is set out in s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp). Subsection 15.2(1) provides that awarding support is discretionary and depends on what the court “thinks reasonable.” Support can be made on an interim basis, or for a limited period of time, or it can be paid in a lump sum.

[108] Subsection 15.2(4) states that “[i]n making an order under subsection (1) … the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including:

(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.”

[109] Subsection 15.2(5) states that the court “shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.” Subsection (6) states the objectives of any order for spousal support, which should:

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[110] In my view, none of the listed factors in subsection 15.2(4) favour the Applicant.

[111] The marriage was of a relatively short duration, and it was the second marriage for both, in middle age.

[112] There is no evidence that Wang performed any functions in the marriage that would suggest he needs compensatory support. According to Li, Wang left his job at a factory and, as Wang admits, he did not seek other employment. There is no evidence Wang took on housekeeping or other obligations in the home or other responsibilities within the marriage other than, he asserts, managing the “family pool” of money. Of course, that money was not provided by him and there is no evidence of what, if anything, he did in managing any investments. Li disputes this assertion. Wang certainly did not manage Li’s income properties in China or take on those responsibilities; if so, he would not have needed an accounting, or appraisal, to claim rental income. And Li’s assets were not so large as would justify a full, or even part-time, money manager.

[113] Further, as I have found, as a condition of marrying Li Wang agreed in the Prenuptial Declaration that Li had “the sole and absolute right” to her property and assets, including “joint property and assets (property, cash etc.).” Implicitly, this would also bar a claim for support by Wang.

[114] On the other hand, the opening words of subsection 15.2(4) require consideration generally of “the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse.” Here, Wang’s means appear to be very limited while Li, although perhaps not as well-off as she was at the outset of the marriage, has significant assets. Still, Li has not been steadily employed until recently and I have limited evidence of any other income she has earned from investments. For the reasons given earlier, I do not accept the rental income Wang seeks to have me impute to Li for the Chinese properties, and I have no basis to reasonably impute any income to her from them.

[115] Turning to the applicable objectives in subsection 15.2(6), I conclude that they do not favour Wang. He had significant economic advantages for 4.5 years during the marriage when he lived well, in a luxury home, at no cost to him. However, Wang has suffered economic disadvantage and perhaps economic hardship from the breakdown of the marriage, as he is no longer able to live in the matrimonial home and be supported by Li, and now lives in an apartment receiving social assistance.

[116] Against this, I observe that the parties have been separated for over six years. Wang did not seek support in his Application in 2017, and was only permitted to amend his application to seek spousal support when he raised it in October 2023. Wang has led no evidence of any specific hardship suffered in the years since separation. He has been able to fund this litigation and pay significant costs awards.

[117] It is possible that support for Wang might “promote…economic self-sufficiency” by him. However, he has made no efforts, in over six years, to become self-sufficient, and I have no basis to think that will change if he obtains support for a period of time, or a lump sum. As was the case in MacEachern v. MacEachern, 2020 ONSC 31 at para. 89, the roadblock to self-sufficiency lies in the unwillingness of the claimant to get there. Further, having regard to the length of the marriage, Li’s limited income, and other considerations such as the age of the parties and Wang’s delay in making such a claim, any support order would be modest and of short duration, which would not make a meaningful difference in promoting Wang’s self-sufficiency “within a reasonable period of time.”

[118] Accordingly, I conclude that Wang has no entitlement to spousal support.

Mental suffering

[119] In her Answer filed in early 2018, Li pleaded that during the marriage Wang physically and psychologically abused her, cursing her and yelling at her, and threatening to kill her and her daughter if he did not pay his expenses or give him money. Li also pleaded that Wang pointed a gun at her head and drove dangerously fast and erratically in order to scare her. Eventually, because of threats to kill her, Li fled the matrimonial home in September 2017 to seek shelter elsewhere, including at a women’s shelter. After leaving the home, Wang sent threatening and harassing messages to Li, and even after his arrest Wang continued to contact her.

[120] Li testified about this at trial, and I accept her evidence. Despite Wang’s denials, there are contemporaneous messages from Wang consistent with Li’s account that he pointed a gun at her head and that he would frequently shout at her and make threats towards her. Li’s description of these events was compelling and emotional; and she confronted Wang about them, which he simply denied. Upon Li’s departure from the home, Wang also sent messages to her threatening to sue her in Canada and China, and to report her to tax authorities and police in China and Canada, which he did, although there is no evidence that Li has been charged with any offences. [4]

[121] Li’s withdrawal from Seneca College is also consistent with a situation in which she was traumatized and feared for her life.

[122] Wang’s cross-examination of Li on their time together did nothing to diminish Li’s evidence. He put to her a Partner Assault Response (PAR) Program Completion Report about himself which Li had not seen. This simply contained comments by the counsellor, based on what Wang had told him, that the abuse allegations might be false. Wang seemed to think that this statement exonerated him and proved that he was not violent, but it is nothing more than self-serving hearsay.

[123] Wang also suggested that Li had secretly recorded their conversations for two years; indeed, a police report was put to Li containing transcripts of recordings she had made of their arguments in September 2017. But there is no law against making such recordings and Li admitted making them, saying she did so because she felt threatened at the time. When Wang suggested that the witnesses she had listed for the prosecution in the criminal case had refused to testify for her, Li said this was because people were afraid of Wang. None of this undermined the credibility or reliability of Li’s evidence.

[124] Li also called evidence from a psychotherapist and a psychiatrist. While they did not see Li until more recently, Dr. Xiang, a psychiatrist at the Scarborough Health Network, described Li as experiencing a great deal of emotional distress and depression. Although the immediate, or more recent cause, of her condition is the stress of the ongoing legal proceedings with Wang, he said that it also appeared to be caused by the abuse she said she suffered from her husband during the marriage.

[125] Ruth Xie, a counsellor and registered psychotherapist with Family Services in York Region, treated Li for stress and trauma arising from both the ongoing legal proceedings and the abuse Li described to her of events during the marriage. Ms. Xie described Li as feeling fearful and helpless, and they worked on strategies to help her be more in control of her safety and her life.

[126] As the Court of Appeal observed in Ahluwalia at para. 1, “[i]ntimate partner violence is a pervasive social problem” which “takes many forms, including physical violence, psychological abuse, financial abuse and intimidation.” All of these forms of violence exist in this case.

[127] In Ahluwalia at para. 69 the Court noted that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has three elements: “(i) the defendant’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous; (ii) the conduct was calculated to harm; and (iii) the conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness” citing Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002), 215 D.L.R. (4th) 31 (Ont. C.A.).

[128] In my view, Wang’s actions were deliberate, flagrant and outrageous acts committed with the calculated intent to cause Li emotional harm and mental suffering. The harm and suffering was apparent to me in Li’s many emotional moments during the trial and was supported by the evidence of Dr. Xiang and Ms. Xie.

[129] While much of Li’s evidence focussed on the more recent harm caused by the ongoing stress of the litigation with Wang, her descriptions of Wang’s behaviour during the marriage are chilling and establish a pattern of conduct. The continuing effect on Li was confirmed by both experts.

[130] At paras. 74 to 89 of Ahluwalia the Court of Appeal reviewed a number of cases involving this kind of tortious behaviour in the family context, including many damage awards. Some of the earlier cases had quite modest awards while some more recent cases have larger awards, perhaps reflecting the growing appreciation of the damage caused by intimate partner violence, in all its forms, and the need to condemn it.

[131] In Jane Doe 72511 v. Morgan, 2018 ONSC 6607, 143 O.R. (3d) 277, Gomery J., as she then was, awarded a total of $100,000 in damages for emotional and physical abuse during a six-month period involving repeated and ongoing physical and verbal abuse, including disclosing a sexually explicit video in retaliation for reporting the assaults and threats to the police.

[132] Li has described terrifying incidents and controlling behaviour during a marriage that lasted four years and led to Li fleeing the home fearing for her safety and the safety of her daughter. The harmful effects of Wang’s conduct are long-lasting and must be condemned. In my view, an award of $75,000 is appropriate.

Conclusion

[133] The relief sought in the Application is dismissed. The Respondent’s claim for damages is allowed in the amount of $75,000. I order that the Respondent shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. Wang is ordered to return all personal property to Li within 30 days of the release of these Reasons, including the Rolex watch, jade, art and antiques which were removed from the matrimonial home following the separation in September 2017. The restraining order previously issued by this Court remains in effect.

[134] In the absence of any agreement on costs, Li may deliver written submissions within 30 days of the release of these Reasons, not exceeding 5 pages in length, double-spaced, not including attachments. Wang shall have 30 days to provide a written response, subject to the same restrictions on the length of submissions.

Paul B. Schabas J.

Date: April 22, 2024

Footnotes

[1] Wang’s opening statement had many attachments, most of which were referred to and identified at the trial. However, I explained to him that I would not admit his daughter’s affidavit, which was one of the attachments, as it was hearsay. Wang also said he did not rely on paras. 37 to 41 of his opening statement which contained troubling and offensive conspiracy theories which, as I told him, had no place in the trial. I made the same points during Li’s cross-examination of Wang.

[2] Following the conclusion of the trial, Wang suggested he wished to file some expert evidence about Zhang’s signature. I did not re-open the case as the first time Wang raised this issue was in his cross-examination of Li; it ought to have been raised, if at all, in Wang’s own evidence and production made on the point. In any event, as noted, it does not affect the conclusion that funds deposited to Wang’s accounts in January 2013 came from Li.

[3] I leave aside the issue of whether income received during the marriage is even capable of equalization as, presumably, it would have been earned and either spent or included in the parties’ assets on the valuation date, one way or another.

[4] Li referred to a letter to the Chinese authorities explaining the 400,000 RMB tax payment for the sale of her company – 20% of the profit of 2,000,000 RMB explained above – which she sent because of Wang’s complaint to China.