Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: FS-16-0313-00
Date: 2025-06-19
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
Supreet Walia, Applicant

• and -
  Ashutosh Walia, Anil Kumar Walia, Rita Walia, and Wal Homes Inc., Respondents

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

Counsel:
Applicant: Supreet Walia, represented by Supriya Joshi
Respondents: Self-Represented

Judge: Wilkinson

Introduction

[1] The 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.

[2] For 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.

[3] The 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.

[4] For 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

[5] The 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.

[6] Prior 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.

[7] Unfortunately, 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.

[8] When 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.

[9] The 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.

[10] The 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.

[11] The 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.

[12] The 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.

[13] The 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.

[14] The 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.

[15] The 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.

[16] The 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.

[17] The 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.

[18] The 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

[19] Net 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."

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

[21] Documentary 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, para 132).

[22] There 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.

[23] It 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.

[24] I 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

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

[26] The 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.

[27] The 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

[28] Both 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

[29] The 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.

[30] The 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.

[31] I 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

[32] In 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.

[33] The 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.

[34] Given 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.

[35] I 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.

[36] I 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.

[37] On 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.

[38] The 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.

[39] However, 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.

[40] I 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.

[41] The 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.

[42] I 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.

[43] The 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

[44] The 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.

[45] The 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.

[46] The 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.

[47] There 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.

[48] There 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.

[49] The 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.

[50] I 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.

[51] The 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 perceivedas 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.

[52] Section 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.”

[53] The 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.

[54] On 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.

[55] In 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.

[56] Section 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.

[57] Similarly, 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

[58] I 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 remainder of the judgment continues with detailed analysis of the Husband's property, vehicles, business interests, loans, and the court's findings on equalization, as set out in the original document.]

Conclusion

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

[190] The value of the Husband’s assets at the date of marriage totaled $332,234.14 as follows:

• Investments - $139,993.46
• Ballard Avenue property - $180,252.68
• Pension - $11,488
• iPad - $500

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

• Mortgage for Ballard Avenue - $135,189.51
• Loan to Anil Walia - $52,520
• MBNA line of credit - $1,674

[192] The Husband’s net family property on the date of marriage was therefore $332,234.14 - $189,383.51 = $142,850.63.

[193] The value of the Husband’s assets as of the date of separation total $773,721.73, as follows:

• Mercedes - $30,000
• Ballard Avenue property - $333,761
• Pension - $86,739.51
• Investments - $237,252.22
• Value of the corporation - $85,869
• iPad - $100

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

• Mercedes debt - $30,564.38
• Line of credit (Ballard Avenue) - $220,154.58
• Loan to Anil Walia - $70,408
• R.R.S.P disposition costs - $63,572.10
• Loan to his company - $63,700
• Loans and credit card debt - $136,646.32

[195] The 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.

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

Costs

[197] The 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.

[198] In 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