CITATION: Walia v. Walia et al, 2025 ONSC 3495

COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-0313-00

DATE: 2025 06 19

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

WALIA, Supreet

JOSHI, Supriya, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

WALIA et al

Self-Represented

Respondent

Heard: September 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, 2024

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILKINSON J.

1The only issue to be determined at this trial is equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage. The Applicant Wife, Supreet Walia, had originally brought an Application against the Respondent Husband, Ashutosh

Walia (“Ashutosh”). Before the trial, Supreet amended the Application to also include claims of unjust enrichment made against the Husband’s parents, the Respondents, Anil Kumar Walia and Rita Walia, and their company, Wal Homes Inc. At the beginning of the trial these three additional Respondents brought a summary judgment motion to have the Application against them dismissed.

2For reasons given orally, the moving Respondents were successful in their motion, and the Application against them was dismissed. The trial proceeded solely with respect to the Application filed by the Wife as against the Husband regarding their respective claims for equalization of net family property.

3The Wife asserts that she is entitled to an unequal division of net family property. She claims that the equalization calculations of the Husband understate his actual net family property, due to questionable transactions. Both parties claim that their respective net family property is zero, and that they are each owed an equalization payment from the other. The Wife seeks an equalization payment from the Husband in the amount of $377,106.24. The Husband seeks an equalization payment from the Wife in the amount of $70,000.

4For the reasons that follow, I find that the Wife is entitled to an equalization payment from the Husband in the amount of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest retroactive to the date of separation.

Background

5The parties were married on July 12, 2012. It was a second marriage for them both. After the marriage they moved into the basement of the home owned by the Husband’s parents, where they lived until the date of separation. The Husband’s younger brother also lived in the home with his wife and children. The parties had two children during their marriage. They separated on October 27, 2016.

6Prior to the marriage, the Wife was working full-time for the Royal Bank of Canada (“the RBC”) as a senior financial analyst, starting in May 2011. Her tax return from 2011 confirms her income was approximately $75,000. She testified that before the marriage she was financially independent, and had been living on her own. Once she moved into the family home, she testified that she was required to share all her income and finances with the Husband’s family.

7Unfortunately, the Wife was laid off from RBC in October 2012, a few months after the parties were married. She was pregnant with the parties’ first child at the time. She did not work outside the home after that for the duration of the parties’ marriage. The Wife testified that her in-laws did not like her working.

She stated that she stopped trying to find work, and shifted her attention away from current events. She stated that her focus became solely on her family.

8When the parties met and married, the Husband was working for TD Bank.

He had previously obtained a certified financial analyst designation. The Husband was also assisting his father with his real estate business, which included purchasing residential investment properties in Florida. The Husband did not provide his Notice of Assessment for 2012. However, his tax return for 2013 confirms that he earned $117,360.90 that year from TD Bank, followed by

$115,456.13 in 2014, and $119,137.13 in 2015.

9The Husband’s employment with TD was terminated in November 2015, following which he started his own company, 9597611 Canada Inc. The company dealt with assisting banks with implementing rules set by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (“OSFI”). His tax return for 2016 shows a net taxable income of $130,506.84.

10The Wife testified that the Husband and his father controlled all the finances in the marriage. She testified that once she lost her financial independence, she had to email the Husband to obtain permission prior to purchasing items. She provided some examples of emails between the parties

from December 2012 in which the Husband gave her instructions regarding credit cards and other payments.

11The Wife also provided emails from December 2012 between the Husband and an accountant, which confirm that it was only the Husband and his father who met with the accountant, even though financial issues relating to the Wife were being discussed, including a TFSA, a RRSP, and a Notice of Assessment.

12The Wife further testified that the fact that her name appeared on a joint account with the Husband does not mean that she was actually managing the account. She stated that she never had the password for the account, she never made deposits or withdrawals from the account, and she was not provided with statements from the account prior to the parties’ separation. She testified that the first time she saw statements from the joint TD account was in March 2021, approximately 4 ½ years after the parties’ separation.

13The Husband denied that he was financially controlling during the marriage. He testified that the Wife had access to her own credit card, and that she was able to make purchases independent of him.

14The Wife also alleges that the Husband received financial payments from his father that have not been disclosed in this litigation, that he owns real estate

that has not been disclosed in this litigation, and/or that he has been hiding money with an unknown third party to avoid having to equalize the funds.

15The Wife testified that the Husband told her that he was making real estate investments with his father. She stated that she was not involved in the real estate investments, and did not know the details as to the purchases being made, but that she believed that the investments were being made for the benefit of their children. She also testified that the Husband would frequently attend real estate investment seminars with his father.

16The Husband admitted that he made YouTube videos with his father regarding his father’s real estate business, and that he assisted his father with posting these videos on social media. He also testified that he spent quite a bit of time building a website for his father, and that he accompanied his father on two different trips to Florida when his father was interested in purchasing property there. However, he denied receiving any payment from his father for these services.

17The Husband’s father, Anil Walia, testified in person, but in addition, the parties agreed that Anil Walia’s affidavit sworn September 3, 2024, formed part of his evidence at this trial. Anil provided evidence that the Husband did not own any property investments with him during the parties’ marriage.

18The two children are now ages nine and eleven. They are happy and healthy, and reside with the Wife. The parties have resolved all issues related to parenting, spousal support and child support.

The Law – Equalization of Net Family Property

19Net Family Property ("NFP") is defined in s.4 of the Family Law Act as "the value of all the property, except property described in subsection (2), that a spouse owns on the valuation date, after deducting, the spouse's debts and other liabilities."

20The party claiming a deduction has the onus of proving the deduction (s.4(3) of the Family Law Act).

21Documentary proof of a deduction is not always necessary. It is possible to prove a deduction if a party's oral evidence is reliable and credible (Albaz v. Rihawi, 2024 ONSC 812, at para. 132).

22There is some evidence before me that the Wife freely provided financial information to the Husband when it was requested of her. The fact that she may have provided this information does not equate to her having control over her finances. I accept the Wife’s evidence that she was expected to co-operate with the Husband’s financial plan for the family.

23It is not disputed that the Husband put the Wife’s name on a joint account with him. This was the account where his salary payments were deposited. I accept the Wife’s testimony that she did not operate the account, and did not have a username for online banking or a debit card. The Wife argues that the Husband had several bank accounts, and that this account was the only account he made joint with her.

24I accept the evidence of the Wife that she had little control over, or involvement with, the finances in the family. I also accept her evidence that she had little knowledge of any investments made by the Husband, or the financial affairs of the family.

Date of Marriage and Date of Separation Values

25It is not disputed that the Wife had few assets on the date of marriage, and that she did not work during the marriage.

26The Wife relies upon her Financial Statement sworn August 21, 2024 as the most accurate summary of her financial situation on the date of marriage, the date of separation, and her present financial worth. These amounts are also reflected in a Form 13C Comparison of Net Family Property Statements, that was made an exhibit on consent at the trial. Both parties had the opportunity during

the trial to cross-examine the other regarding the amounts listed, for both date of marriage and date of separation values.

27The Husband relies upon his Financial Statement sworn August 30, 2024 as the most accurate summary of his financial situation on the date of marriage, and the date of separation. The Husband provided no evidence regarding his current financial worth.

Matrimonial Home

28Both parties testified that the home in which they lived during the marriage was owned by the Husband’s parents, Anil and Rita Walia. It is therefore appropriate that both parties list a zero value for the matrimonial home in their respective Net Family Property Statements, on both the date of marriage, and also, the date of separation.

The Wife

General Household Items and Vehicles

29The Wife identified $7,000 of household goods and furniture owned by her at the time of marriage, which she valued at $4,200 on the date of separation. The Husband does not dispute these values.

30The Wife testified that at the time of the marriage she received cash of

$10,000 from her family, from which she initially spent $400, leaving her with

$9,600 cash coming into the marriage. She has no documentation to establish this cash contribution, but the Husband does not dispute that the Wife received this cash payment. The Husband also does not dispute that the Wife had $100 in electronics on the date of marriage. He also does not dispute that the value of these items remained the same on the date of separation.

31I accept the Wife’s evidence that she owned $16,700 in household items and cash as of the date of marriage. I further accept her evidence that on the date of separation the value of her furniture had reduced to $4,200, and that she retained the $9,600 cash, and $100 in electronics for a total value for these items of $13,900.

Bank Accounts, Savings, Securities and Pensions

32In her Financial Statement the Wife lists a total of $29,945.51 in financial assets on the date of marriage comprised of numerous bank accounts totaling approximately $9,819.01, a GIC worth $14,240, and $5,886.50 in a Royal Bank employee stock option plan. The Wife was able to produce a document confirming the value of the GIC, but was unable to produce documentation confirming the other amounts she owned on the date of marriage. She testified that she believed

she obtained the numbers she listed on the Financial Statement during a telephone call with the Royal Bank, but was not certain this was the case.

33The Wife does not dispute that there is financial documentation that is missing to support the values she has set out in her Financial Statement. She testified that she has been unable to obtain some of the missing documentation due to the document retention policies at the Royal Bank. In his submissions, the Husband rightly points out that the Wife has not provided financial documentation to prove the quantum of money that she had in her bank accounts on the date of marriage, apart from the GIC of $14,240.

34Given that the Wife worked prior to the marriage and was financially independent, it is quite possible that she was able to save the amounts that she claims on her Financial Statement. However, it is her onus to prove the date of marriage deductions, and she has not done that for the amounts she claimed were in her bank accounts, apart from the GIC. The emails and other documents that she provided that list an amount for a TFSA and other accounts do not specify the value of her financial assets on the date of marriage. I therefore find that the Wife had savings of $14,240 on the date of marriage.

35I also was not provided with any documentation of the Wife’s claimed disposition costs of $2,563.02 on the date of marriage, although I note that the Husband did not object to the accuracy of this number.

36I therefore find that the Wife’s net family property on the date of marriage totaled $16,700 (furniture and cash) and $14,240 (GIC) = $30,940.

37On the date of separation, the parties each had several bank accounts, and one joint account. I accept the evidence of the Wife that although her name appears on the joint account, she did not access this account, or withdraw money from this account. The Husband provided a statement that on the date of separation the joint account #5766 had $8,000. This entire amount shall be reflected as an asset owned by the Husband on the date of separation.

38The Wife states in her Financial Statement that the combined value of her four accounts on the date of separation was $24,922.79. She provided bank statements to prove the values of three of the accounts which total $21,799.96. The Husband does not challenge the numbers from these three accounts.

39However, the Wife was not able to produce a statement for her RBC RRSP, which she says was worth $3,122.84 on the date of separation. The Husband asks me to make a negative inference regarding this amount, as the Wife

gave an undertaking to provide proof of the date of separation value, but did not provide the requested documentation.

40I decline to make a negative inference that the Wife’s RRSP was worth more than the $3,122.84 that she claims on the date of separation. She had only worked for about one year at the date of marriage, and her employment was terminated by RBC a few months into the marriage. She therefore had a limited ability to put money into an RRSP. I accept her evidence that her RRSP was worth $3,122.84 on the date of separation. Accordingly, I accept the Wife’s evidence that she had a total of $24,922.80 in her bank accounts on the date of separation.

41The Husband submits that the Wife’s salary of $13,125 for the three months she worked at RBC following the date of marriage, and the $20,273 that she received from Employment Insurance after her employment was terminated, are also values that should be added to the Wife’s date of separation financial holdings. The Husband points to the Wife’s testimony that she did not transfer any funds to him, to support his claim that the Wife had possession of these funds on the date of separation.

42I reject the Husband’s evidence that he had no involvement with the payments that the Wife received working for RBC, and after her termination. I

accept the Wife’s testimony that she was expected to hand over these payments to the family income, where they were managed by the Husband. I therefore decline to add these sums into the Wife’s date of separation assets.

43The only liabilities that the Wife claims for the date of separation are a credit card debt of $5.07, and disposition costs of $2,811.57. Although I have not been provided with any documentation confirming the amounts claimed by the Wife, the Husband does not challenge her numbers. Given the comparatively low value of these amounts, and the Husband’s apparent acceptance of these numbers, I find that the Wife’s only liability on the date of marriage was a disposition cost of $2,563.02, and that her liabilities on the date of separation totaled $2,816.64.

Jewelry

44The Wife testified that she brought $37,000 worth of jewelry into the marriage, including sets of diamond and gold bangles that had been her mother’s. She does not have receipts to establish this value. She also testified that her in- laws gifted her some jewelry, including a set of two bangles and two chains. She testified that she does not have any of this jewelry now, as she did not take it with her when she left the relationship.

45The Wife valued the jewelry on the date of separation as $25,500 in her August 21, 2024 Financial Statement. I was not provided with evidence as to why the value of the jewelry reduced. I also was not provided with an explanation as to why the Wife listed the jewelry as being in her possession on the date of separation in her Financial Statement, when her oral testimony was that she took no jewelry with her when she left the home on the date of separation.

46The Husband provided a series of appraisals for jewelry as assessed by Singapore Jewellers Inc. in Mississauga. There are three appraisals dated December 20, 2011 for jewelry valued at $9,686, $26,055, and $41,520 respectively, which are all made out to the Husband’s parents, Rita and Anil Walia.

47There is also an appraisal for $1,700 for the purchase of a diamond ring on May 12, 2012. The appraisal is made out to Anil Walia. The same date, there is an additional appraisal made out to Anil Walia, for jewelry totaling $3,813.

48There is also another appraisal made out to Anil Walia on August 20, 2013 for a chain and pendant totaling $340. This is the only appraisal from Singapore Jewellers with a date that is after the date of marriage.

49The total value of the appraisals for the jewelry purchased by Anil Walia is $83,114. The Husband testified that his father purchased this jewelry in India, and gifted it to him. The Husband also provided photographs of the jewelry which

identifies the weight of each piece. The Wife did not challenge the accuracy of the values of the jewelry as appraised. I accept that the value of the jewelry is as appraised by Singapore Jewellers. I find that the jewelry was in the possession of Anil Walia on the dates of the appraisals, but I make no finding as to when he purchased the jewelry.

50I also make no finding as to when, or if, Walia gifted the jewelry, and to whom. Anil testified that he gifted the jewelry to the Husband, but he did not say when he made the gifts. The Husband provided a photograph of the Wife wearing some of what appears to be the same jewelry at a wedding, taken on September 1, 2016, prior to the date of separation. This single photograph does not prove if the Wife owned the jewelry, or when it was given to her.

51The parties agree that a blue sapphire ring was purchased for the Wife by Anil Walia in 2016 from a jeweler in India called “Sapphire Enterprises.” The Husband provided a copy of the receipt for this purchase, indicating that the cost was 226,000 Rupees, which the Husband testified equated to $4,500 Canadian dollars at the time. The Wife agrees that the sapphire ring was purchased for her. She testified that the purpose of this gift from her in-laws was their effort to cleanse what they perceived as her dirty soul. She therefore did not like to wear the ring, and took it off at night. She testified that she placed it in a drawer, and has not touched it since October 2016 when she left the home.

52Section 4(2) of the Family Law Act states that property acquired by gift or inheritance received after the date of marriage does not form part of a spouse’s net family property on the date of valuation. As the blue sapphire ring was purchased by Anil Walia as a gift for the Wife, it shall be excluded from the Wife’s net family property statement. Therefore, whether or not the ring was in her possession on the date of separation, the net value of this ring is “nil.”

53The Financial Statement sworn by the Husband on August 30, 2024 lists the value of jewelry owned by him on the date of marriage as $83,114, with a value of $87,827.88 on the date of separation. The value of the jewelry listed is the total amount of the receipts from Singapore Jewellers. The Husband testified that he does not have this jewelry now, and that it is in the possession of the Wife. The Wife says she took none of the jewelry with her when she left the home on the date of separation.

54On the evidence before me, I am unable to determine which party is in possession of the jewelry. In addition, I am unable to determine which items listed on the receipts are excluded from the division of net family property because they were gifts from Anil Walia during the marriage. The fact that most of the jewelry was purchased by Anil prior to the marriage does not establish that the jewelry was also gifted to the Husband or the Wife prior to the marriage.

55In addition, I was provided with no evidence as to when the jewelry was given to the Husband, where it was stored once he received it, or how the Wife had access to the jewelry.

56Section 4(3) of the Family Law Act specifies that the party claiming a pre- marriage deduction of net family property has the onus of establishing the deduction. Both parties have failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish ownership of jewelry prior to the marriage. Accordingly, neither party is permitted to deduct the value of jewelry from their date of marriage net family property calculations.

57Similarly, both parties have failed to establish that the other was in possession of the jewelry on the date of separation. Neither party provided any evidence as to whom has possession of the jewelry now, or at the date of separation. Accordingly, neither party is permitted to add the value of jewelry to the other party’s date of separation net family property assets.

Conclusion – Values for Net Family Property for the Wife

58I conclude that the value of the Wife’s net worth on the date of marriage was $16,700 + $14,240 - $2,563.02 (disposition costs) = $28,376.98. I further conclude that the value of the Wife’s net worth on the date of separation was

$13,900 + $24,922.80 - $2,816.64 (disposition costs and credit card debt) =

$36,006.16, resulting in a net family property on the date of separation of

$7,629.18.

The Husband

General Household Items and Vehicles

59The Husband listed two vehicles in his Financial Statement. One was a 2011 Toyota Camry that he says was owned by him on the date of marriage and the date of separation. The second vehicle is a 2013 Mercedes that was acquired during the marriage. The Wife did not provide any evidence as to the value of either vehicle.

Date of Marriage and Date of Separation Values for the Camry

60The Husband submitted that the Camry was worth $18,000 on the date of marriage. The Husband produced a Vehicle Purchase Agreement which lists the purchaser as Anil Walia, dated October 7, 2011. The Husband provided proof of a transfer of ownership of the Camry from him and his father jointly to solely him, effective September 24, 2015. The Husband was unable to recall how much he paid his father for the car, or the reason why the title to the vehicle was moved exclusively to his name. The Husband’s Financial Statement does not reflect an outstanding loan for this vehicle on the date of marriage.

61The Husband testified that he was the owner of the Camry on the date of marriage even though the purchase receipt is in his father’s name. He provided a credit card statement showing a payment for car insurance, to TD Insurance on September 27, 2012 for $4,921. The Husband testified that he eventually purchased the vehicle from his father, although he was unable to provide the date when the Camry was purchased, or the amount he paid his father for the Camry. There is no dispute that the parties had use of the Camry, as the Wife confirmed in her evidence that she drove the Camry.

62Although the Husband may have had use of the Camry on the date of marriage, I do not have sufficient evidence before me to find on a balance of probabilities that he owned the Camry on the date of marriage. The Husband’s name does not appear on the purchase receipt, and he did not have exclusive titled ownership of the Camry on the date of marriage. I accept the Husband’s evidence that he made an insurance payment for the Camry a few months after the wedding, but proof of an insurance payment does not equate to proof of ownership.

63The Camry will therefore not be included as an asset owned by the Husband on the date of marriage.

64The Husband claims that the date of separation value for the Camry is

$10,552.71, as he states that this amount was still outstanding on the car loan on the date of separation. However, the Husband also provided a Vehicle Valuation report dated March 28, 2016, that indicates that the Camry had been in an accident five days earlier, on March 23, 2016, and that the Camry was being written off. This accident happened seven months before the date of separation.

65The Husband testified that the money he received from the write-off was used to payout the loan agreement on the vehicle, but confusingly, he also testified that he was still paying the loan for the Camry on the date of separation.

66Given that there is a valuation report confirming that the Camry was being written off in March 2016, there is insufficient evidence before me to find that the Camry was an asset in the Husband’s possession on the date of separation.

67I am also unable to make a finding regarding what amount, if any, was still outstanding on the loan for the Camry on the date of separation. The Husband submits that $14,297.81 was still owing on this loan on the date of separation, and he provides a loan statement entitled “Expenses” which states that this amount was due on the valuation date. This documentation is not sufficiently detailed to establish that the loan was for the Camry. In addition, this evidence conflicts with

the evidence from the Husband that he used the money from the insurance company to pay down the loan on the Camry.

68I also note that the Husband did not list a date of marriage value for the car loan in his Net Family Property Statement, which suggests there was no money owed for a loan for the Camry on the date of marriage. Therefore, the Husband’s Net Family Property Statement will not list the value of the Camry as an asset on the date of marriage or the date of separation, nor will a loan for the Camry be listed as a liability on the date of separation.

Date of Marriage and Date of Separation Values for the Mercedes

69The Husband also provided a Bill of Sale from Toronto Auto Mall Luxury Division for a 2013 Mercedes. The description of the value, sale price, and date of the Bill of Sale cannot be read on the document. The Husband testified that the vehicle was purchased after the date of marriage in late 2015. He also provided a copy of a loan agreement with TD Bank which states that it is for the 2013 Mercedes, and confirms financing of $32,106.10. The document is not dated, but states that it was “last modified” on June 21, 2016.

70The Husband testified that he gave the vehicle a value of $30,000 on the date of separation in his Net Family Property Statement, as he allowed for some modest depreciation from the purchase price that is reflected in the value of the

loan. The documentation provided confirms that the Husband’s company, 9597611 Canada Inc., made the loan payments for the Mercedes.

71I find that the Husband only had one vehicle asset on the date of separation, which was the 2013 Mercedes with an outstanding loan of $30,564.38. While the evidence suggests that the Husband’s company was making the loan payments, it was the Husband himself, and not his company, that owed the debt on the Mercedes.

72As the date of separation was less than a year after the Mercedes was purchased, I accept the Husband’s estimate of the value of the vehicle at $30,000 on the date of separation. I therefore find that the value of the Mercedes on the date of separation was $30,000, and the debt owed by the Husband for the Mercedes on the date of separation was $30,564.38.

2818 Ballard Avenue, Orlando, Florida - Date of marriage value

73The Husband testified that nine days before the marriage he purchased an investment property in Florida, located at 2818 Ballard Avenue, Orlando, Florida. The sale documentation provided by the Husband confirms that the purchase price was $178,468 USD when the property was purchased by him on July 13, 2012. The Wife agrees that $178,468 USD is an appropriate date of marriage deduction for this property. The Wife did not offer an exchange rate for

the value of the home in Canadian dollars, but did not oppose the date of marriage rate of 1.01 suggested by the Husband, which is $180,252.68 Canadian.

74The Husband also produced an invoice in the amount of $23,547 USD dated August 23, 2012, for work that was performed to repair the home, which the Husband submits increased its value beyond the amount of the purchase price. The Husband relies upon a residential appraisal report that he says represents an accurate value of the Ballard home on the date of marriage, had the repairs been completed, with an assessed value of $233,000 USD, or $235,330 Canadian using a 1.01 exchange rate.

75I decline to add these repair costs to the purchase price, as no witness came forward to corroborate the value of the repairs completed, nor was there affidavit evidence from the individual who performed the repairs. I decline to rely upon the appraisal report offered by the Husband, as the author of the report did not provide evidence at trial, nor do I have any information about the expertise of the person completing the report to provide the opinions offered. The information contained in the report is therefore unreliable hearsay.

76I also note that the invoice for the repairs was dated after the date of marriage, so any increase in the value of the property based on repairs completed after the date of marriage is appropriately subject to equalization.

77I therefore find that the value of the Ballard Avenue property on the date of marriage was $178,468 USD, which converts to $180,252.68 Canadian.

78The Wife accepts that on the date of marriage the Husband had a mortgage with RBC Georgia for $133,851 USD ($135,189.51 Canadian).

2818 Ballard Avenue, Orlando, Florida - Date of separation value

79I was not provided with clear and reliable assessments for the value of the Ballard property on the date of separation. The Husband seeks to rely upon a comparative analysis report to assess the value of the home at the date of separation. The Husband testified that the value he used on his Financial Statement came from the comparative market analysis, from which he took the average price between the two valuations, which was $233,000 USD, and then converted these amounts into Canadian dollars, using the exchange rate of 1.354, for a total value of $305,064 Canadian on the date of separation.

80On his Financial Statement the Husband did not provide a US dollar amount for the property, but instead provided the amount of $305,064 once converted into Canadian dollars. This amount converts to approximately

$226,000 USD using the 1.354 exchange rate suggested by the Husband.

81I find it confusing that the Husband appears to be arguing that the value of the home was $233,000 USD on the date of marriage, yet four years later had

a lower value of approximately $226,000 USD on the date of separation. No evidence was provided by the Husband to explain a drop in value for the property after the date of marriage, nor does a reduction in the value of the property accord with common sense.

82I find that the comparative analysis report is also unreliable hearsay, as the author of the report did not testify at trial, nor do I have any information regarding the expertise of the author of the report to enable him to provide opinion evidence.

83In her written closing submissions, the Wife attempted to rely upon a document that was untitled, that was not entered into evidence at the trial, to demonstrate the value of the Ballard Avenue home on the date of separation. I will not be relying upon this document either. It is inappropriate to refer to a document in closing arguments that was not entered into evidence at the trial.

84On the Comparative Net Family Property Statement, the Wife submits that the value of the Ballard property on the date of separation was approximately

$252,000 USD ($341,468 Canadian), using a 1.354 exchange rate. She seeks to rely upon county property records available through a Florida government website to establish the value of the property on the date of separation. The Wife argues that evidence of the property value as set out on the website, while hearsay, is

necessary and reliable. The county tax records reflect the following purchase history and tax valuation history for the property:

• 2008: purchased for $256,000 USD

• Feb. 8, 2012: $112,100 (purchased by PNC Mortgage, and sold for an unknown amount to the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development on March 1, 2012.)

• July 9, 2012: $178,500 (purchased by the Husband)

• 2018: $280,200 (property tax records)

85Although the county tax records are hearsay evidence, I find them to be necessary and reliable, as they are produced by a neutral third party with no affiliation with either of the parties, and they are government records. Also, if no value was ascribed to this property as of the date of separation, due to the Husband’s failure to properly value it, the Wife would be unduly prejudiced. I draw an adverse inference against the value proposed by the Husband.

86The Husband testified that he purchased the Ballard property following a foreclosure, which is consistent with the property tax records reflecting a transfer of title to PNC Mortgage for $112,100 a few months prior to the Husband purchasing the property for $178,500 USD. The Husband testified that he

obtained the Ballard property for a good price because it had been subject to foreclosure. I further acknowledge that the property tax records value the property at $280,200 USD two years after the date of separation.

87The increase in value reflected on the property tax records averages approximately a $17,000 USD per year increase in the value of the property. I therefore infer that the value of the Ballard Avenue property on the date of separation was $68,000 USD higher than the value on the date of marriage, for a date of separation value of $246,500 USD.

88The Wife did not challenge the exchange rate of 1.354 used by the Husband for his conversion from US dollars to Canadian dollars in his Financial Statement. I therefore find that the value of the Ballard property on the date of valuation was $333,761 Canadian.

89The Wife also did not challenge that the Husband owed approximately

$163,500 USD ($220,154.85 Canadian) on a TD line of credit on the date of separation, which occurred after the Ballard mortgage was refinanced with TD in 2015.

Loan from Anil Walia to Ashutosh to purchase Ballard Avenue

90The loan for $133,851 USD that the Husband initially received from RBC Georgia was not sufficient to purchase the Ballard property, which he had

purchased for $178,468 USD. The Husband testified that he did not want to use his RRSPs to fund the balance of the purchase, as he would have been taxed on that withdrawal, and he didn’t want to deplete an asset to acquire the property.

91The Husband testified that he consequently borrowed funds from his father to be able to complete the purchase. The HUD statement confirms a payment of $49,679.35 USD being received from Anil Walia. As well, the Husband provided a statement from the Royal Bank dated July 12, 2012, that confirms the transfer of these funds.

92I find that $49,679.35 USD was advanced by Anil Walia to the Husband to help fund the purchase of Ballard Avenue. There were also two receipts from Home Depot totaling $2,540.55, which totals $52,219.90 advanced by Anil to the Husband. Anil and the Husband both signed a promissory note on July 18, 2012 confirming that the Husband owed Anil $52,000 USD. The conversion on these funds at the rate of 1.01 is $52,520 Canadian.

93The promissory note states that the Husband owes his father interest at a rate of 12% per annum, and that he must repay his father the principal owed when the property is sold, if the debt is not repaid prior to that time.

94The Husband testified that his father was in the business of private lending at the time that he loaned the funds to him, and 12% was the lowest interest rate that he could offer.

95The Husband testified that he has made a few interest payments to his father, but not many, as his father has not been insisting on regular interest payments. In his Financial Statement, the Husband included the $52,000 USD owed to his father as a debt on the date of marriage and on the date of separation. The Husband also included the interest owed to his father on the loan as a debt that he owed on the date of separation, which he calculated to be $110,841.54 including interest at 12% per annum. The loan from Anil is not registered against the property.

96In his testimony, Anil confirmed that the Husband still owes him the amount that was loaned, and that it will be repaid when the Ballard property is sold.

97The Wife submits that the funds provided by Anil to the Husband to help purchase the Ballard Avenue home was a gift, and should therefore not be reflected as a debt owed by the Husband on the date of marriage or the date of separation.

98In Barber v. Magee, 2015 ONSC 8054, at para. 42, affirmed by the Court of Appeal at para. 4, Justice Fitzpatrick identified the factors to be considered when determining if an advance of money is a gift or a loan:

a) Whether there were any contemporaneous documents evidencing a loan;

b) Whether the manner for repayment is specified;

c) Whether there is security held for the loan;

d) Whether there are advances to one child and not others or advances on equal amounts to various children;

e) Whether there has been any demand for payment before the separation of the parties;

f) Whether there has been any partial repayment; and

g) Whether there is an expectation or likelihood of repayment.

99The Husband has provided sufficient documentation to prove that Anil advanced $52,000 USD to him in July 2012. The promissory note specifies that the loan is to be repaid upon the sale of the property if it is not paid prior to that time. The Husband testified that he has made a few interest payments on the loan. Anil testified that he expects the loan to be repaid. There was no evidence before me that Anil provided loans to his other son.

100I accept the evidence of both the Husband and Anil that there is an expectation that the Husband will eventually repay Anil the $52,000 loan when the Ballard Avenue property is sold. There was no evidence presented at the trial as to if, or when, the Husband intends to sell the property. It is possible that he may never sell the property. However, as the purpose of investments is to make money, I infer that it is more likely than not that the Husband will eventually sell the property to access the funds invested in the property.

101It is unknown what the rate of exchange will be when the Ballard property is finally sold. Accordingly, I find it is most appropriate to use the exchange rate on the date of separation to calculate the value of the $52,000 USD loan, resulting in a date of separation value for the loan of $70,408 Canadian. The same approach was used in Etemad v. Hasanzadeh, 2014 ONSC 6737, at para. 46.

102The Husband has not, however, established that there is an expectation that his father will receive any interest on the loan. Although the promissory note states that interest at 12% per annum is owed on the loan, at the time of trial Anil Walia had taken no steps in the twelve years since the funds were advanced to collect on the loan. Anil also did not provide any oral or affidavit evidence that he intended to begin collecting the interest owed. The Husband has not established that there is an expectation of repayment with respect to any interest that he claims

is owed for the loan. There will be no date of separation deduction for any interest connected to the loan from Anil.

The Husband’s pension with TD

103I was not provided with a valuation of the Husband’s pension on the date of marriage. However, the Husband provided documentation confirming that the date of separation value for the pension was $86,739.51. The Husband testified that the pension was a defined benefit plan, and that it would be a complicated calculation to determine the value of the pension as of the date of marriage. The Husband worked for TD for a total of eleven years, having worked there eight years prior to the date of marriage, and an additional three years after the date of marriage.

104The Husband proposes that the date of marriage value of his pension be calculated at 8/11 of this amount, totaling $63,083.28, to recognize that contributions were being made to his pension for eight years before he was married.

105The Wife submits that the value of the Husband’s pension on the date of marriage should not be included in the date of marriage valuation, as the Husband did not provide a Family Law Pension valuation to support this deduction. Alternatively, she submits that the Husband’s pension should be assessed at

$11,488, which was the total value of his contribution to the pension plan as of October 31, 2011, which is the date of the available statement from TD that is closest in time to the parties’ date of marriage.

106The Husband responds that if the Wife proposes to value his pension on the date of marriage by using the quantum of his contributions prior to the marriage, then the date of separation value of the pension should be similarly calculated by using the value of his contributions as of the date of separation, which totaled

$29,058.

107There is no question that the Husband had a pension with TD Bank on the date of marriage. It is therefore appropriate that this asset be reflected as a date of marriage deduction. Without the benefit of expert opinion, it is impossible for this Court to accurately calculate the value of the Husband’s defined benefit pension. As the Husband seeks the deduction, the onus is on him to establish the value of his pension on the date of marriage. He has not done so. The statements from TD Bank confirm that as of the date of marriage, the Husband had contributed

$11,488 into his pension. Accordingly, that is the value that will be used as the value for the Husband’s pension on the date of marriage.

Value of the Husband’s company 9597611 Canada Inc.

108The Husband did not have a company when the parties were first married.

He started his company in January 2016 after his employment with TD Bank was terminated in 2015. On the date of separation, the Husband was the sole shareholder and director of his company. The parties agree that the company owned no assets.

109The Husband provided a valuation statement from SDR Valuations Inc.

The resume submitted by the author of the report, Steven Rayson, states that he is a chartered business valuator, who has presented on numerous occasions and has written numerous articles addressing business valuations. There was no evidence before me that Mr. Rayson has previously been qualified by the Superior Court of Justice to appear as an expert on business valuations, although he signed a Form 20.2 Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Mr. Rayson did not appear as a witness at the trial.

110The Wife did not consent to the admission of this report into evidence for the truth of its contents. However, it is the only evidence before me as to the value of the company on the date of separation. The report is based upon the fair market value of the assets and liabilities of the company at the valuation date, having considered the balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. I also note that the Wife

did not strenuously object to the introduction of this report into evidence, nor did she provide her own business valuation for the Husband’s business. In addition, the Wife relied upon some of the conclusions of the valuator in her submissions.

111As I have no other evidence before me addressing the value of the Husband’s company, I must consider the valuation in the report. The report assessed the fair market value of the company on October 27, 2016 at $54,800, minus $5,000 contingency costs, having assessed it as an ongoing concern on that date, using an adjusted net asset method of assessment. Mr. Rayson therefore concluded that the fair market value of the company on the date of separation was $49,800.

112In his assessment, Mr. Rayson identified the Husband’s gross income from the business for 2016 as $133,960. Numerous expenses were deducted from this amount to establish a net income from the business, including, for example, advertising, automobile expenses, and meals and entertainment.

113The Wife objects to the deduction of $7,367 for automobile expenses from the company’s gross earnings. She submits that since the Husband was using the car personally, half of the expenses paid by the company for the Husband’s Mercedes should be added back to the gross earnings of the company prior to the date of separation.

114I was not provided with evidence as to how the $7,367 was broken down.

The Husband testified that the automobile expenses claimed against the company were a percentage of the expenses for both vehicles, including gas. The Wife did not make submissions regarding the automobile cost being excessive.

115The Husband submits that it is appropriate for the full $7,367 expense for the vehicles to be put through the company, as had the car expenses not been paid through the company, he would have paid the same amount through his personal account or line of credit.

116The Husband’s analysis is correct. As he was the sole director of the company, had he not flowed the automobile expenses through the company, he would have had increased personal expenses. Those expenses would have been reflected on his line of credit or a reduction elsewhere in his personal accounts, which would have been reflected on his Net Family Property Statement.

117The Wife also challenged the validity of the payment of $31,040 for subcontractor fees that the Husband paid to his father in 2016. In his testimony, the Husband explained that he worked exclusively for the Royal Bank as a business analyst contractor through his corporation. His work involved helping the accounting team at the Royal Bank understand and apply the rules set by the regulator of the bank, which was the Office of the Superintendent of Financial

Institutions (“OFSI”). More specifically, the Husband testified that he was working on developing a document that was intended to help the Royal Bank technology team understand what it had to do to follow the OFSI rules relating to margin requirements, which were intended to prevent the failure of banks.

118The Husband testified that in 2016 he paid his father $31,040 for quality assurance work relating to the work he was doing with the Royal Bank and OFSI. The Husband testified that his father’s job was to check the work that the technology specialists had completed on the document, to make sure that what the team built properly responded to the government’s requirements. As an example, the Husband stated that quality assurance ensured that when buttons were electronically clicked that the appropriate page opened electronically. The Husband testified that his father has been doing quality assurance for almost thirty years, and has certifications in quality assurance.

119The Husband testified that the testing took approximately two to three weeks. In his submissions, he stated that there is a contract, invoice, and proof of payment with respect to the fee charged by his father to his company. However, those documents were not made exhibits at the trial, nor were they attached as an exhibit to the September 3, 2024 affidavit of Anil Walia that formed part of the evidence for this trial. In addition, Anil did not provide oral or affidavit evidence regarding his work for the Husband’s company.

120The Wife submits that the Husband has not proven that he paid a fee to his father, or that the fee paid was a genuine expense of the corporation. She takes the position that the $31,040 paid to Anil should be added back to the company, to increase its date of separation value by $31,040.

121I accept the Husband’s evidence that his father performed some quality assurance work for him, but I am unable to attach a financial value to this work, as I was not provided with sufficient documentation regarding this company expense. Although the Husband testified at trial that his father’s work was very detailed and time-consuming, which is why he was paid a fee, he provided little detail about the actual work performed by Anil. The Husband has not discharged his onus to establish that the $31,040 fee paid by his company to his father was an expense of the company on the date of separation. The valuation for the company will therefore need to be recalculated, with $31,040 returned to the gross profits of the company in 2016.

122The valuation report from Mr. Rayson confirms that the company’s cash as of December 31, 2016 was $88,334. I was not provided with any calculations for the tax implications to the company in terms of its valuation if the fees of

$31,040 paid to Anil were returned to the company in 2016. In determining the company’s value, Mr. Rayson deducted $22,605 in liabilities from cash holdings, in addition to $10,900, which is the estimate of the net income that the company

earned in 2016 after the date of separation. In the absence of any other evidence, I am adding the $31,040 in fees back to Anil Walia back into the cash holdings of the company for 2016, which totals $119,374 as of December 31, 2016. I find that the value of the corporation as of the date of separation is therefore $119,374 -

$22,605 - $10,900 = $85,869.

Loan owed by the Husband to his company

123On his Financial Statement the Husband claimed that he owed $63,700 to his company on the date of separation. He testified that he used the funds from his company to pay down his personal line of credit to avoid paying interest on the line of credit. However, before the end of the year on the advice of his accountant he repaid the money to his corporation. The valuation report is therefore silent about the loan, as it was repaid in the same year. The Wife submits that the

$63,700 personal loan taken by the Husband from the company should reduce the value of the company by $63,700. The Wife is incorrect.

124The Husband paid down his credit line with the loan he took from his company. It would therefore be double-counting of the $63,700 asset to require the Husband to reflect a line of credit balance reduced by $63,700 at the date of separation, but not allow him to record a $63,700 debt owed by him to the company.

125Furthermore, the Husband testified that when he took the loan from the company it was reflected as an asset of the company as an account receivable, and would therefore still have been considered to be an asset of the company in the valuation. The value of the $63,700 personal loan that the Husband took from his company does not increase the assessed value of the company.

Loan to the Husband from Sailesh Godse

126The Husband’s statement from his USD account 5028 shows a deposit of $36,500 coming into the account on February 3, 2016. Once the funds were received, the Husband transferred the funds to pay down his USD line of credit 5919. On February 16, 2016, the Husband transferred $35,600 back from the line of credit, and then wrote a cheque to the Bank of America.

127There is a signed promissory note between Mr. Godse and the Husband dated January 29, 2016. The Husband testified that this loan was registered against the Ballard Avenue property in Florida, and he points to a stamp in the top right corner of the document indicating that it is a mortgage document.

128Mr. Godse did not testify at the trial. The Husband provided minimal evidence regarding this loan. He testified that his father had previously paid off his credit card that he had been using for family expenses. In exchange, the Husband obtained this loan from Mr. Godse, and then sent the money to his father to repay

him through the Bank of America cheque. Anil did not provide any evidence about this loan in his oral testimony.

129In her closing submissions, the Wife did not challenge that the funds were received from Mr. Godse. However, I do not have enough evidence before me to conclude that this loan for $36,500 USD remained outstanding on the date of separation, or that the loan was used to pay for family expenses. The Husband has not proven on a balance of probabilities that this debt should be included as a liability for him on the date of separation.

933 Whispering Cypress Lane, Orlando, Florida

130The Husband testified that his father regularly purchased properties in Florida. One of these properties was located at 933 Whispering Cypress Lane in Orlando, Florida. The Purchase and Sale Agreement for this property dated April 15, 2013, lists the Husband as the purchaser. The Husband testified that his father unintentionally listed him as the purchaser at the time the property was purchased, and that the Husband had not invested any money in the purchase of this property. The Husband also provided a copy of a Quit Claim deed signed by him on June 17, 2013, in which he transfers title of the property to his mother and father.

131I accept the Husband’s evidence that he did not invest in the purchase of this property, nor did he receive any money from this property. The Whispering

Cypress Lane property shall therefore not be listed as an asset on the Husband’s Net Family Property Statement.

Notional Disposition Costs for RRSPs

132The Husband takes the position that he will be taxed at approximately 30% when he withdraws funds from his three RRSP accounts (one being his pension), and accordingly, he lists those disposition costs as a date of separation debt. The total value of the RRSPs (including his pension) on the date of separation was $211,908.61. The Husband claims the taxation disposition costs totaling $63,570.90 for the three accounts.

133Where the future disposition is not “speculative” the tax consequences should be allowed as a deduction. In particular, R.R.S.P.s are taxable in full, whether they are cashed in total, or taken by way of annuity (Sengmueller v. Sengmueller (1994), 1994 CanLII 8711 (ON CA), 17 O.R. (3d) 208 (C.A.), at paras. 26-27).

134The Wife did not provide any alternate calculations as to the appropriate quantum to be used for disposition costs regarding the Husband’s RRSPs. In the absence of more specific evidence, I therefore find that it is reasonable and appropriate for the Husband to use 30% as a prospective tax deduction on his

R.R.S.P. savings, to provide for a date of separation deduction totaling $63,570.90.

Bank Accounts, Savings, Securities and Pensions

135In his Financial Statement, the Husband lists assets in bank accounts, RRSPS, etc. as totaling $139,993.66 on the date of marriage. The Wife accepts the date of marriage values of all but three of the accounts: the TD Registered Group RSP ($26,586.13), the TD Deferred Profit Sharing Plan ($7,036.66), and the TD Non Registered account ($3,156.35). The value of these three accounts on June 1, 2012 totaled $37,139. There is a second statement dated December 27, 2012, in which the total value of the three accounts is listed at $6,090.93. The Wife suggests that the reduction in these accounts may have been caused by funds being removed to assist with the purchase of Ballard Avenue.

136There is no evidence before me that the funds from these accounts were used to assist with the purchase of Ballard Avenue in Florida. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) statement with respect to the purchase of Ballard Avenue reflects the money used for the purchase as coming from a mortgage from RBC Georgia, and $49,028.65 paid by Anil Walia. The Husband has proven that he had funds totaling $139,993.66 in his accounts on the date of marriage.

137The Husband has established that the value of his assets as of the date of marriage was a $500 iPad, investments totaling $139,993.46, and the Ballard

property valued at $180,252.68, and his pension valued at $11,488 for a total value of assets on the date of marriage of $332,234.14.

138I find that the Husband’s liabilities as to the date of marriage were the mortgage for the Ballard property of $135,189.51 Canadian, his loan to his father of $52,520 Canadian, and an MBNA line of credit for $1,674. The Husband’s liabilities on the date of marriage therefore totaled $189,383.51.

139The Husband therefore had a net worth of $332,234.14 - $189,383.51 =

$142,850.63 on the date of marriage.

Should values from account 9082 be reflected in the Husband’s Net Family Property Statement?

140The Husband’s name is listed as being an owner of account 9082 along with his father. However, despite the account being in his name, he argues, in essence, that these monies were being held in trust for his father. It is the Husband’s onus to establish this resulting trust.

141I was not provided with the account values for account 9082 on the date of marriage. The account statement provided to me lists the last balance in the account prior to the date of separation on October 3, 2016 as $328.93. This account therefore had a very low balance on the date of separation on October 27, 2016.

142As the amount in this account was very low on the date of separation, for equalization purposes it does not make much practical difference if the Husband was holding the funds in account 9082 in trust for his father.

143Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness I will address this issue. The Wife confirmed in her evidence that she did not have knowledge about the Husband’s bank accounts. The available evidence confirms that the Husband had zero net worth in his other financial holdings on the date of marriage. The evidence establishes that Anil Walia often paid for expenses, such as jewelry, cars, and investment properties. Other than Ballard Avenue, there is no evidence that the Husband owned properties, and there is substantial evidence of debt being carried by the Husband throughout the parties’ marriage. I also acknowledge the evidence of both the Husband and his father that the money in account 9082 was owned by Anil. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the Husband was holding the funds in account 9082 in trust for his father, and accordingly, these funds will not be reflected as an asset owned by the Husband on the date of marriage or the date of separation.

Has the Wife established that the Husband is hiding money?

144The Husband testified that as an employee of TD Bank, he was able to access more favourable exchange rates to assist his father in converting Canadian

money to US funds. He testified that his name was on account 9082 to permit him to more conveniently exchange currency. The Husband’s father also testified that the Husband frequently exchanged currency for him.

145To support this claim, the Husband provided an email from him to his father dated January 16, 2013, in which he provided his father with various exchange rates using TD, Bendix, Questrade, and Interchange Financial, and that TD provided the best rate. The Husband also provided a copy of a second email dated January 29, 2013, which compared the exchange rate from Canadian to US dollars provided by TD and ING.

146The Wife vigorously cross-examined the Husband regarding the manner in which he exchanged currency for his father. The Husband provided evidence of three different ways that he converted funds into US dollars for his father.

147I was provided with numerous records that demonstrate Anil making deposits in the Husband’s Canadian accounts, and then the Husband converting the funds to US dollars, and transferring US funds back to his father. I do not intend to describe each and every transaction in this decision, but I will provide the particulars of one set of transactions for explanation purposes.

148The records from the joint account 5766 show that $125,000 was withdrawn from the account on April 18, 2016. Anil and the Husband both testified

that Anil gave the Husband cheques in March 2016 to deposit into the Husband’s account. The bank account records for account 5766 show cheques being deposited on March 28, 2016 in the amounts of $22,500, $22,500, $15,000, and

$15,000.

149There is also a cheque from Anil to the Husband for $45,000 dated March 27, 2016, that was deposited into the Husband’s line of credit account 0699, along with another cheque for $5,000. The statement from account 5766 shows these two deposits for $45,000 and $5,000 coming in from the Husband’s line of credit account 0699. Together, these deposits total $125,000, which was the same amount that was withdrawn from account 5766 on April 18, 2016.

150The bank statements therefore confirm that $125,000 was deposited into account 5766, and then transferred out of account 5766 to ultimately be deposited into Anil’s account 9082. The Husband testified that with this set of transactions he utilized the Norbert’s Gambit method of exchanging currency, by using accounts that TD Bank created on both the Canadian and US stock exchanges. He testified that he moved stocks from a Canadian investment account to US investment account, and then sold the shares in US dollars. The Husband testified that account W81E was a Canadian dollar account, and W81F was a US dollar account.

151The bank statements establish that $97,073.52 USD was deposited into account 9082 on April 25, 2016 from account W81F. Account 9082 also shows two transfers coming into account 9082 from W81F in the amounts of $50,478.23 USD and $50,478.23 USD.

152In reviewing multiple transactions between Anil and the Husband, I was unable to find an example of the Husband sending money to his father where it was clear that he was not reimbursed by his father. Many of the reimbursement transactions are transparent, and take place immediately on the same day as funds were converted from Canadian dollars to US dollars.

153There is no question that it is somewhat difficult to trace all the funds coming in and out of the various accounts, particularly when the Husband did not provide the records for his line of credit account 0699. The Wife asks me to draw a negative inference that the missing records from account 0699 provide evidence of the Husband hiding money.

154There is not sufficient evidence before me to make such an inference.

The Wife did not direct me to evidence that establishes on a balance of probabilities that the Husband sent money to his father that should have been subject to equalization. I also note that the records from other accounts that have

been produced contain some information about funds sent to and from account 0699.

155Given the volume of transactions that took place between the Husband and Anil, I cannot say with certainty that every payment sent to Anil by the Husband was repaid. However, my review of the available documentation suggests that generally the funds advanced by the Husband were repaid to him by Anil. In addition, given the extent of debt that the Husband was carrying, and his constant juggling of borrowed funds between credit cards and credit lines to obtain lower rates of interest, I find it unlikely that he had extra funds available to give to his father.

156The Wife has not met her onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the Husband was hiding money during the marriage. Speculation and suspicion is not evidence. The Wife has therefore failed to prove that there are additional funds apart from the amounts disclosed in the Husband’s Financial Statement that should be attributed to the Husband’s net family property on the date of marriage or on the date of separation. The Husband has provided documentation of all the amounts listed in his various accounts as of the date of separation. I therefore find that the value of the Husband’s combined assets present in his bank accounts on the date of separation including his pension was

$321,491.73.

Work or Services Provided by Ashutosh to his Father

157Both the Husband and his father provided evidence that the Husband was not paid for the services he provided to his father. The Husband testified that it was not much effort for him to exchange money into US currency, and that he was not paid a fee by his father for performing this service. The Husband also testified that he assisted his father with building a website and with posting videos on social media. He did not charge his father for this service either.

158The Husband also testified that on two occasions he travelled with his father to the United States and drove his father around when he was in the market for purchasing properties. The Husband testified that he was not paid for this service either.

159The Wife has established that the Husband assisted his father in the real estate business, but she has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Husband received additional properties, assets, or income by assisting Anil Walia with his US real estate investments. In addition, there is no evidence in the record before me that the Husband was paid by his father to perform any of these services. I find that the Husband was not paid by Anil for these services.

Value of the Husband’s bank accounts on the date of separation

160The Husband provided bank and account records confirming that on the date of separation he had investments and money in his bank accounts totaling

$237,252.22, plus his pension valued at $86,739.51 for financial assets totaling

$323,991.73. The Wife does not challenge that the accounts reflect these numbers.

161The Husband also provided statements that confirm that on the date of separation he owed $356,801.17 for various loans, credit cards and lines of credit, in addition to the $63,700 he borrowed from his company, $70,408 owed to Anil,

$63,570.90 in R.R.S.P disposition costs, and $30,564.38 owed on a loan for the Mercedes. The Wife does not challenge the accuracy of the bank statements, but at trial she aggressively challenged the legitimacy of the amount of debt being carried by the Husband on the date of separation.

162The Husband testified that he generated a great deal of debt during the marriage because his salary was the only source of funding for him, the Wife, and their two children. As well, he testified that he wanted the Wife to be happy, so he spent money on trips, and other sources of entertainment to please her.

163The Husband also gave evidence about other expenses he paid for, such as the cost of their wedding, and the storage of cord blood for the parties’ son,

Anand. The Husband acknowledged that he did not have receipts with him at the trial to prove all the expenses he funded for the family, but he also submits that if the Wife wanted that information, she should have asked for it. He states that the Wife has never requested these documents prior to the trial.

164The Wife incorrectly submits that it is the Husband’s onus to establish the legitimacy of the expenses he claims to have incurred, and that he has not met this burden. It is in fact the Wife’s burden to establish that the Husband spent money recklessly and in bad faith during the marriage, which could entitle her to an unequal division of net family property under s.5(6) of the Family Law Act.

Has the Wife established entitlement to unequal division of net family property?

165Section 5(6) of the Family Law Act sets out the scenarios when a spouse may be entitled to an unequal division of net family property:

(6) 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. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 5 (6).

166Mere unfairness, or even harshness, is not enough to make equalization of net family property unconscionable. To find that an equalization result is unconscionable, the situation must be shocking to the conscience (Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 105, 93 O.R. (3d) 161, at para. 47). The word “unconscionable” relates to an unconscionable result, whether that result flows from fault-based conduct or not (Serra, at para. 58).

167In Serra, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set out a three-step test for parties seeking to make a claim under s.5(6) of the Family Law Act, at para. 37:

a) Determine each spouse’s net family property based on the value of the property owned by each party on the valuation date;

b) Calculate the standard equalization payment as per s. 5(1);

c) Examine if the standard payment would be unconscionable considering the factors listed in s.5(6).

168Having determined each party’s net family property at both the date of marriage and the date of separation, it is appropriate to now consider if either party has made out a claim for unequal division of net family property.

169The Wife submits that equalizing the net family property between the parties in this case is unconscionable, as she contends that the TD pay deposit documentation establishes that the Husband earned salary payments totaling

$161,141 from TD Bank between the date of marriage in July 2012, and December 2015 when he stopped working for TD Bank. Once the $80,377.50 severance payment received by the Husband in February 2016 is included, the Wife submits that the Husband received almost $400,000 from TD during the parties’ marriage, there was only $8,000 in the joint account on the date of separation.

170The Wife argues that based on the Husband’s salary, the family had roughly $6,400 in income each month. The Wife argues that there is no evidence in the trial to explain how the Husband’s income was used by the family.

171The Wife urges me to reject the Husband’s evidence that his salary went towards family expenses. She argues that the Husband used some of his salary to fund investments that he has not disclosed, such as properties in the United States. The Wife points out that often the Husband’s salary was transferred from account 5766 to his personal line of credit the same day the funds were deposited by TD Bank. The Wife did not have access to his credit line, and the Husband did not produce statements from the credit line in the litigation.

172The Wife therefore submits that the Husband has not proven that his salary was spent on expenses for the family, and accordingly, he should be found to have spent the family’s money recklessly and in bad faith, and that she is accordingly entitled to an unequal division under s.5(6)(b) and (d). She asks that

$200,000 be added back to the Husband’s s assets listed in his date of separation net family property calculations.

173The Husband Testified that he was the only income source for the family, and that the majority of his $90,000 per year salary went to paying for family expenses. The Husband did not provide specific information as to the breakdown

of expenses for a typical month during the marriage. However, he testified that he routinely moved funds from the joint account to the line of credit to reduce the interest charges on the line of credit, and that he was regularly in debt.

174The Husband also points out that the Wife gave evidence during the trial that he was carrying a lot of debt. Also, he argues that the Wife testified that after she and the children moved out of the matrimonial home, she was very careful with expenditures while she attempted to re-establish herself. Nonetheless, she testified that she spent approximately $66,000 per year taking care of herself and the two children, which works out to be about $5,500 per month.

175The Husband suggests that this level of spending is consistent with the level of spending that he was doing for the family, as the evidence suggests that he was spending an average of $6,400 per month on two adults and two children, and the Wife was spending about $900 less per month, but she was only paying for one adult.

176I have some concerns about the lack of documentation from the Husband to establish the spending habits for the family. However, the available evidence suggests that the Husband’s expenditures including all the expenses for the family appear to have been greater than the funds coming in, leaving the Husband in a perpetual state of debt. If the Wife’s expenses for the two children and herself are

$5,500 per month, it is not surprising that the Husband’s expenses for the two adults and the two children were on average $6,400 per month. The bank statements confirm that often the Husband was not able to pay off credit card balances, and carried a substantial balance on his line of credits, which had grown to approximately $136,000 by the date of separation.

177There are numerous places in the evidence that establish that it was Anil Walia who paid many of the expenses, such as initially purchasing the Camry, purchasing the Mercedes, paying for trips, purchasing jewelry, and loaning the Husband money to help him purchase the Ballard Avenue home. The Husband testified that he repaid his father for many of these expenses. I infer that Anil Walia paid for many of these expenses up front because the Husband did not have the funds to do so. The available evidence suggests that the Husband and the family were living beyond their means.

178It is also noteworthy that much of the evidence relating to the Husband’s accounts demonstrates a pattern of borrowing from a line of credit or credit card at a lower rate of interest to pay down another loan with a higher rate of interest. The parties both testified that often some of the accounts were reduced to a few dollars at the end of every month.

179It is acknowledged that as the family lived rent-free in a home owned by the Husband’s parents, there should have been more disposable income from the income that the Husband earned to keep the family’s debts under control. However, I have insufficient evidence before me to make a finding that the Husband spent his income on sources other than his family during the time the parties lived together.

180The Wife has not satisfied me that the Husband was hiding money during the marriage, or was sending funds to third parties, or that he was spending the family’s money recklessly or in bad faith. He appears to have been living beyond his means with constant loans and credit owing. Many people live that way. It does not shock the conscience of the Court that the Husband appears to have taken on far more debt than he could reasonably afford. There is therefore no basis in law for me to arbitrarily place additional assets into the Husband’s net family property on the date of separation. The Wife has not made out a claim for unequal division of net family property under s.5(6)(b) or (d).

181The Wife also takes issue with the fact that the Husband has failed to disclose his current financial status. She argues that a comparison of his life post separation with her own financial status can ground a claim for unequal division of net family property.

182However, the evidence before me suggests that it is the Wife who has substantial savings post separation. She testified candidly that through wise financial decisions and financial restraint, she has amassed assets totaling

$473,580.60 as of August 21, 2024, and that in 2023 she was working full-time for the Bank of Montreal earning approximately $100,000 per annum. I therefore do not have evidence before me to establish that the Wife is living in a situation of hardship that shocks the conscience of the Court to support a claim for unequal division of net family property.

Does evidence of family violence entitle a party to unequal division of net family property under s.5(6)(h)?

183The Wife spent a significant portion of her testimony describing the physical violence that she says the Husband displayed towards her during the marriage. She argues that the Husband’s pattern of physical and financial abuse caused her to experience a diminished ability to acquire or maintain property during the marriage. The Wife argues that it would be unconscionable to proceed with an equal division of net family property under the circumstances.

184The Wife therefore argues that if the existence of family violence is proven, this circumstance can permit a court to award an unequal division of net family property under s.5(6)(h), which allows a judge to consider “any other

circumstance relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property.”

185The Wife did not provide any case law to support her argument that a finding of family violence can be a sufficient reason to permit an unequal division of net family property under s.5(6)(h) of the Family Law Act. It is open to parties to claim damages for assault in the context of family violence (Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476). However, the Wife did not make a tort claim in this case. The case law suggests that unequal division should be awarded when there is an unconscionable result, which may not be related to fault-based actions. In Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 105, Justice Blair wrote on behalf of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at para. 58:

There is no principled reason that I can see, given the language of the Act and its purpose or objects, to confine the word "unconscionable" in s. 5(6) only to circumstances arising from fault-based conduct on the part of one of the spouses. Although unconscionable conduct is obviously an appropriate consideration in determining whether equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, in my opinion the true target of the limited exception to the general rule is a situation that leads to an unconscionable result, whether that result flows from fault-based conduct or not.

186There is insufficient evidence before me to establish that the findings I have made in this ruling will result in an unconscionable division of net family property between the parties. Accordingly, I am not required to determine if the Wife was subjected to physical violence by the Husband.

187Somewhat ironically, the Husband also makes a claim for unequal division of net family property under s.5(6)(e) and (f). In making this argument, he relies on the fact that the parties’ marriage was less than five years, and, perhaps more importantly, he argues that he has incurred a disproportionate amount of debt supporting the family.

188As the Husband did not provide any information regarding his present financial situation, I have no evidence to consider if an equal division of net family property will produce an unconscionable result regarding ongoing debts of the marriage that continue to be carried by the Husband. As with the Wife’s claim, there is nothing in the evidence before me that shocks the conscience of the Court with respect to the equalization calculations. Accordingly, the Husband will not receive the benefit of an unequal division of net family property.

Conclusion

189The Wife’s net family property as of the date of separation was $7,629.18.

190The value of the Husband’s assets at the date of marriage totaled

$332,234.14 as follows:

a) Investments - $139,993.46

b) Ballard Avenue property - $180,252.68

c) Pension - $11,488

d) Ipad - $500

191The Husband’s liabilities as of the date of marriage total $189,383.51 as follows:

a) Mortgage for Ballard Avenue - $135,189.51

b) Loan to Anil Walia - $52,520

c) MBNA line of credit - $1,674

192The Husband’s net family property on the date of marriage was therefore

$332,234.14 - $189,383.51 = $142,850.63.

193The value of the Husband’s assets as of the date of separation total

$773,721.73, as follows:

a) Mercedes - $30,000

b) Ballard Avenue property - $333,761

c) Pension - $86,739.51

d) Investments - $237,252.22

e) Value of the corporation - $85,869

f) iPad - $100

194The Husband’s liabilities as of the date of separation total $585,044.45 as follows:

a) Mercedes debt - $30,564.38

b) Line of credit (Ballard Avenue) - $220,154.58

c) Loan to Anil Walia - $70,408

d) R.R.S.P disposition costs - $63,572.10

e) Loan to his company - $63,700

f) Loans and credit card debt - $136,646.32

195The Husband’s net family property on the date of separation was therefore

$773,721.73 - $585,044.45 = $188,677.28. The Husband’s net worth therefore grew from $142,850.63 to $188,677.28 during the marriage, for a total increase in net family property of $45,826.65. As the Wife’s net family property on the date of separation was $7,629.18, the Husband owes the Wife an equalization payment of $45,826.65 - $7,629.18 divided by 2 = $19,098.74.

196The Wife is entitled to pre-judgment interest and post judgment interest in accordance with s.128 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Cost

197The parties are encouraged to agree upon costs. Each party had mixed success. Depending upon the content of any Offers to Settle, this may be an appropriate case for each party to bear their own costs.

198In the event that the parties require a costs ruling, each party may make a submission no longer than four pages double spaced.

Wilkinson J.

Released: June 19, 2025

CITATION: Walia v. Walia et al, 2025 ONSC 3495

COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-0313-00

DATE: 2025 06 19

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

WALIA, Supreet

Applicant

- and –

WALIA et al

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Wilkinson J.

Released: June 19, 2025

ONTARIO

Superior Court of Justice

(Name of court)

at 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON, L6W 4T6

Court office address

Form 13B: Net Family Property

Statement

Applicant(s)

Respondent(s)

My name is (full legal name) Supreet Walia

The valuation date for the following material is (date) October 27, 2016

The date of marriage is (date) July 12, 2012

(Complete the tables by filling in the columns for both parties, showing your assets, debts, etc. and those of your spouse)

Table 1: Value Of Assets Owned on Valuation Date (List in the order of the categories in the financial statement)

PART 4(a): LAND

Nature & Type of Ownership

(State percentage interest)

Address of Property

Applicant

Respondent

Home Ownership (100%)

2818 Ballard Avenue, Orlando, Florida

$333,761.00

15. Totals: Value of Land

$0.00

$333,761.00

PART 4(b): GENERAL HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND VEHICLES

Item

Description

Applicant

Respondent

Vehicle

Mercedes

$30,000.00

Electronics

IPad

$100.00

Furniture

$4,200.00

Electronics

Other

$100.00

16. Totals: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles

$4,300.00

$30,100.00

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

Category

(Savings, Checking, GIC, RRSP, Pensions, etc.)

Institution

Account Number

Applicant

Respondent

Pension

TD Bank

$86,739.51

Bank Accounts

$24,922.80

$237,252.22

Cash

$9,600.00

17. Totals: Value of Accounts And Savings

$34,522.80

$323,991.73

FLR 13B (May 15, 2009) DivorceMate.com

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

9597611 Canada Inc.

Owner (100%)

$85,869.00

19. Totals: Value Of Business Interests

$0.00

$85,869.00

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])

$38,822.80

$773,721.73

Table 2: Value Of Debts and Liabilities on Valuation Date (List in the order of the categories in the financial statement)

PART 5: DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES

Category

Details

Applicant

Respondent

Car Loan

Debt Owing on Mercedes

$30,564.38

Line of Credit

Debt Owing on Ballard Avenue

$220,154.58

Personal Loan

Loan to Anil Walia

$70,408.00

RRSP disposition costs

$63,572.10

Loan

Loan to 9597611 Canada Inc.

$63,700.00

Loans and Credit Card Debt

$136,646.32

Disposition Cost and Credit Card Debt

$2,816.64

23. Totals: Debts And Other Liabilities, (TOTAL 2)

$2,816.64

$585,045.38

Table 3: Net value on date of marriage of property (other than a matrimonial home) after deducting debts or other liabilities on date of marriage (other than those relating directly to the purchase or significant improvement of a matrimonial home)

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

Category and Details

Applicant

Respondent

Land (Do not include any property owned on the date of marriage that is a matrimonial home on the date of separation).

$180,252.68

General household items and vehicles

$16,700.00

$500.00

Bank accounts and savings

$14,240.00

$139,993.46

Life and disability insurance

Business interests

Money owed to you

Other property

$11,488.00

3(a) TOTAL OF PROPERTY ITEMS

$30,940.00

$332,234.14

Debts and other liabilities (Specify)

Mortgage on Ballard Avenue Property

$135,189.51

Personal Loan to Anil Walia

$52,520.00

MBNA Line of Credit

$1,674.00

Disposition Cost

$2,563.02

3(b) TOTAL OF DEBT ITEMS

$2,563.02

$189,383.51

24. NET VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON DATE OF MARRIAGE,

(NET TOTAL 3)

$28,376.98

$142,850.63

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

Item

Applicant

Respondent

Gift or inheritance from third person

Income from property expressly excluded by donor/testator

Damages and settlements for personal injuries, etc.

Life insurance proceeds

Traced property

Excluded property by spousal agreement

Other Excluded Property

26. TOTALS: VALUE OF EXCLUDED PROPERTY, (TOTAL 4)

$0.00

$0.00

TOTAL 2: Debts and Other Liabilities (item 23)

$2,816.64

$585,045.38

TOTAL 3: Value of Property Owned on the Date of Marriage (item 24)

$28,376.98

$142,850.63

TOTAL 4: Value of Excluded Property (item 26)

$0.00

$0.00

TOTAL 5: (TOTAL 2 + TOTAL 3 + TOTAL 4)

$31,193.62

$727,896.01

Applicant Respondent

TOTAL 1: Value of Property Owned on Valuation Date (item 22)

$38,822.80

$773,721.73

TOTAL 5: (from above)

$31,193.62

$727,896.01

TOTAL 6: NET FAMILY PROPERTY (Subtract: TOTAL 1 minus TOTAL 5)

$7,629.18

$45,825.72