Razavi v. Golzari, 2026 ONSC 2686

CITATION: Razavi v. Golzari, 2026 ONSC 2686

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-778

DATE: 2026/05/05

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Simin Razavi, Applicant

-and-

Ahad Zavar Golzari, Respondent

COUNSEL: John Guest, for the Applicant

Valerie Akujobi, for the Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice J. Audet

HEARD: January 30, February 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2026

REASONS FOR Decision

1This five-day trial dealt exclusively with the Applicant wife’s claim for an equalization payment. Although there were some discrepancies between the parties’ position regarding a number of debts and assets, which needed to be addressed, the real issue in contention in this proceeding was not the quantum of the equalization payment owing to the Applicant wife. Rather, the issue was whether an equalization payment should be made at all.

2More specifically, the Court was asked to answer the following questions:

1- Even though the parties were legally married, should the Court deviate from the equalization scheme on the basis that the parties were never truly spouses and instead functioned merely as roommates or as landlord and tenant?

2- Is the equalization of net family property affected by an agreement allegedly entered into by the parties or, in the alternative, by an arrangement between them regarding the management of their financial affairs?

3- Is the equalization of net family property unconscionable in the circumstances of this case?

3For the reasons that follow, I find that the parties’ marriage was real and legally binding, that they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation on October 23, 2020, and that the Applicant wife is entitled to an equalization payment as calculated at the conclusion of this decision.

4I further find that the Respondent husband has not demonstrated that it would be unconscionable (or even unfair) to require him to pay an equalization payment to the Applicant wife.

THE PARTIES

5Ahad was an avid body builder and a proud member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Although of Iranian origin, he was born and raised in Canada and is not affiliated with any organized religion. Ahad does not enjoy socializing. While his neighbours described him as friendly and polite, he is very private person who does not particularly enjoy having people in his home. He has few friends and has severed ties with most of his family, except for his sister, Vahideh, who lives in the UAE. Ahad can be very rigid in his thinking. He was discharged from the military in April 2018 for reasons unknown to me. During the three years that followed his discharge, he struggled to obtain and maintain employment. His inflexible personality has undoubtedly contributed to these difficulties.

6Simin was born in Iran and immigrated to Canada as an adult. She is soft-spoken and, during the early years of the parties’ relationship, was entirely devoted to her studies. After completing a university degree in Physics in Iran, she earned a master’s degree in medical physics at Carleton University in 2017. She quickly secured gainful employment in her field after she graduated. Although not particularly social, she made friends readily at work and in her neighbourhood. She remains close to her family, who are deeply connected to their Iranian heritage and Muslim faith.

BACKGROUND FACTS

7The parties were introduced in the spring or summer of 2013 by family and friends who believed they might be compatible. At the time, Ahad was posted to Ottawa, and Simin was a full-time student completing her master’s degree at Carleton University. After their introduction, they quickly formed a connection and spent many hours speaking on the phone in the months that followed.

8At the time the parties met, Ahad was actively searching for a home to purchase in Ottawa. While they were dating in 2013, he purchased the property located at 700 Beatrice Drive, in Ottawa, in his sole name, for $385,000, with a mortgage of $275,500 (“the home” or “the property”). The balance of the purchase price was funded by a downpayment of approximately $130,000, including approximately $25,000 withdrawn from Ahad’s RRSP and converted into a Home Buyer’s Plan. These funds were Ahad’s lifesavings amassed frugally over all the years of his employment within the military.

9In September 2013, approximately one month after its purchase, Simin moved into Ahad’s home. She explained that, as an unmarried woman, her culture and religion prohibited living in close proximity to a man and that her family would not approve if they knew. As a result, the parties maintained separate bedrooms, with Ahad moving to the basement and Simin occupying the master bedroom.

10Ahad does not dispute that when the parties began dating and moved in together, they were in love, contemplated marriage, and shared the hope of someday having children and building a family.

11Money has always been of great importance to Ahad. He is extremely frugal and testified that his father strongly pressured him as a youth to save and invest his earnings, particularly by purchasing a home. Ahad adopted very strict money-management practices, and it was essential to him that any partner adhere to the same principles. By his own admission, a partner’s failure to do so would have been a deal-breaker.

12From the outset, Ahad questioned Simin extensively about her financial habits. When they decided she would move in with him, he outlined strict financial rules: all household and joint expenses would be divided equally. Because Simin was not earning income at the time, expenses would be tracked on paper, and once she began earning income after completing her studies, she would reimburse Ahad for expenses he had paid on her behalf. He assured her that her monthly contribution would never exceed 50% of her net income.

13Once reimbursed, Simin would be responsible only for her ongoing 50% share of joint expenses. The same arrangement would apply to Ahad if Simin ever covered expenses on his behalf. Joint expenses included housing costs, utilities, groceries, supplies, and maintenance costs, among others.

14From the time Simin moved in until she moved out, all household expenses—including furniture and contents—were meticulously recorded by Simin in monthly charts, which were provided to Ahad for review. These charts were adduced in evidence during the trial. In later years, Ahad would sometimes also charge Simin for his time performing tasks he considered her responsibility, and for the cost of gas to drive her to and from work.

Turkey

15In April 2014, the parties travelled to Turkey to introduce Ahad to Simin’s family. While there, the parties participated in a religious wedding ceremony (the Nikah or Aghd) performed by an Imam in the presence of Simin’s family. The parties understood that this wedding ceremony did not constitute a legally binding marriage, but they proceeded with the ceremony to legitimize their relationship for religious purposes for the benefit of Simin and her family.

16While in Turkey, Ahad learned that Simin had contacted his estranged stepmother (his father’s wife) without his knowledge in an attempt to reconcile him with his family. When Ahad found out about this, he was deeply upset and told Simin he no longer trusted her and that their relationship was over. The remainder of their stay in Turkey was very difficult as a result.

17According to Ahad, from that point forward, the relationship was over, and the parties lived together only as roommates. Simin testified that she apologized extensively and that, although the relationship was tense for a time after returning to Canada, Ahad eventually accepted her apology and the relationship resumed.

Ahad’s Posting to Kingston

18Soon after the parties’ return to Canada in April 2014, Ahad received notice from the military that he was being transferred to Kingston. He was devastated by this news because it meant that he would have to sell his home in Ottawa in order to move to Kingston.

19After making inquiries, Ahad learned that if he married, he might be able to avoid the posting to Kingston on compassionate grounds. Alternatively, if he were married and his spouse were unable to relocate to Kingston for valid reasons (for example, to complete her studies), he could retain his home while receiving a living allowance to cover his housing costs in Kingston. Finally, there was also a possibility that his posting to Kingston would end early if he were married.

20For all of these reasons, the parties decided to marry immediately. They attended City Hall in Ottawa on June 21, 2014, and were married on that day.

21It is Ahad’s position at trial that the parties agreed to marry on the following terms: Ahad would retain his home while posted to Kingston (and receive a living allowance to cover his costs there), and Simin would continue to reside in his home on the same terms previously discussed (that is, with both parties being responsible for 50 percent of all joint expenses). This arrangement would allow Simin to maintain comfortable housing with minimal financial contributions while completing her master’s degree, and it would allow Ahad to keep his home. While the home would remain Ahad’s sole property, he maintains that if Simin chose to leave the home, she would be reimbursed for all her contributions and permitted to share in the increase in the home’s equity in a proportion commensurate with her contributions, even though she was, in his view, only a roommate.

22While Simin agrees with Ahad’s description of how the parties managed and recorded their finances, she strongly disputes his assertion that they were never truly a couple or that they considered themselves to be roommates. She explained that being “roommates” was never discussed, nor was that term ever used in any of their numerous text messages or written communications over the years. From the moment they married, she testified, they considered each other husband and wife, and this is how they treated each other and represented themselves to the world.

23From June 2014 to September 2017, Ahad worked in Kingston and spent most of his time there. Due to the nature of his military duties, he was unable to return to Ottawa on a weekly basis, but he did return at least one weekend per month (and more frequently, according to Simin). During that period, Simin was completing her master’s degree and was fully invested in her studies. She continued to reside in and maintain the home and diligently recorded the parties’ expenses in accordance with Ahad’s instructions.

24In March 2015, while Ahad was home for the weekend, the parties had a serious argument that left them both very upset. In the months that followed, whenever Ahad returned to Ottawa, Simin would leave the home to stay with a friend. When Ahad realized that Simin would not be present on the weekends he returned home, he stopped coming altogether. This situation persisted for approximately one year.

25Simin agrees that during this period—from March 2015 to April 2016—the parties were effectively separated, and that their communications were limited to matters relating to the home. In April 2016, someone broke into the parties’ home, and Simin immediately notified Ahad, who promptly returned to Ottawa. This event led to a reconciliation between the parties: they resumed communicating with one another, and Ahad began returning to Ottawa on weekends to spend time with Simin.

26Ahad was transferred back to Ottawa in September or October 2017 and returned to live in the home with Simin, although they continued to sleep in separate bedrooms. Ahad was decommissioned from the military in April 2018 for reasons unknown to me, but this was clearly a termination he did not accept. In the years that followed, Ahad worked in various capacities but was unable to maintain employment for extended periods.

The February 24, 2019, “Agreement”

27It was apparent from the parties’ testimony that their relationship was a very difficult one. Simin’s evidence was that conflicts between the parties arose constantly over financial and other issues, leading to volatile, angry, and hostile behaviour on the part of Ahad. Hearing the condescending and frequently demeaning manner in which Ahad spoke of Simin during his testimony, and listening to his extensive grievances about her over trivial matters (such as Simin using his Tupperware to store staining foods; Simin revealing his phone number or place of employment to her family members; Simin’s alleged “neglectful behaviour”; or her unacceptable “level of carelessness” with respect to his house) confirmed Simin’s testimony that life in this household was not easy for her.

28This, coupled with Ahad’s lack of interest in social interaction, led to frequent disputes between the parties. Yet, after each fallout, they would eventually reconcile. Simin testified that it would sometimes take weeks before Ahad returned to a better emotional state, but only after she was prepared to admit fault and apologize profusely for her mistakes. Eventually, however, they did reconcile, and when the parties were in a good place, they would spend quality time together, exchange loving words, and re‑engage in joint activities and mutual support.

29In February 2019, the parties had a serious argument, following which Simin provided Ahad a one-page handwritten document in which she wrote the following:

Hereby, I Simin Razavi declare that I am in an agreement to divorce from Ahad Golzari Zavar.

The following is the list of property that I ask for.

My investment in house from 2013-2019

The growth of the house since the time it has been bought

(list of household contents)

Signed by Simin Razavi

30Simin testified that she was extremely upset with Ahad’s behaviour that day and that she wanted to “shock him” and make it clear that if he did not change, she would leave the relationship. However, according to Simin, Ahad did not even acknowledge receipt of the letter, and she never saw the document again until after she initiated these legal proceedings. When Ahad disclosed the document in the context of this litigation, it included his signature, purportedly affixed to the document on the day Simin gave it to him, February 24, 2019.

31I find as a fact that, to the extent this document was signed by Ahad on February 24, 2019, the signed copy was never brought to Simin’s attention thereafter and was never acted upon by either party. Following this significant argument, the parties continued to reside together in the home for almost two additional years.

The Physical Separation

32At some point in the fall of 2020, Simin realized that her relationship with Ahad was not working and would never work. On or about mid‑October, she told him that she was leaving and would be moving out of the home shortly. She secured an apartment, spoke with her manager, and took a week off work to move her personal belongings out of the home. On October 23, 2020, she left the home permanently.

33In the months that followed, the parties saw each other from time to time to discuss how to disentangle their financial affairs. Ahad was eventually able to retain the services of an accountant who was prepared to complete the detailed and complex accounting exercise required to determine the amount that Simin would be entitled to under the financial terms that Ahad says the parties had agreed upon. After months of discussion, Ahad eventually presented Simin with a figure she was not prepared to accept, and she sought independent legal advice. Thereafter, she commenced these legal proceedings.

THE NATURE OF THE PARTIES’ RELATIONSHIP

34I found that both parties, to some extent, tailored their narratives to support the positions they advanced at trial. However, I did not find Ahad’s testimony on key issues to be particularly credible. It was evident that he deliberately distorted the facts in an effort to support his position that the parties were merely roommates and had, in substance, separated even before they married. This position was untenable from an evidentiary standpoint, and many of the statements he made during his testimony were intentionally misleading, inaccurate, and—at times—absurd (for example, asserting that a kissing‑lips emoji, the gifting of red roses on Valentine’s Day, a birthday card entitled “To My Wife”, and other similar intimate gestures were nothing more than expressions of friendship between two roommates).

35Ahad’s efforts to characterize the relationship as one of landlord and tenant or roommates, particularly during the latter three years of the relationship (2017–2020), significantly undermined his credibility, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is noteworthy that in his original Answer, filed in May 2022, Ahad asserted that the parties “separated with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation in January of 2019, after less than five years of marriage.” He also sought spousal support on the basis that he had been disadvantaged by the marriage and by the consequences of the parties’ separation.

36It was only two years later—approximately six months before the trial was scheduled to begin—that Ahad amended his Answer to withdraw his claim for spousal support and, for the first time, assert that the parties were never truly a couple and had operated solely as roommates throughout.

37Overall, I found Simin’s evidence to be far more credible than Ahad’s, including with respect to the central issues in the case.

38That said, it is indisputable that the parties’ respective understanding of the meaning and nature of their marriage differed profoundly. Although the marriage may have been one of convenience from Ahad’s perspective, it was nevertheless a valid marriage in the eyes of the law, and a genuine marriage from Simin’s perspective, notwithstanding its difficulties, periodic breakdowns, and the considerable challenges the parties faced as a couple. It was a marriage that allowed Ahad to derive significant financial benefits associated with marital status within the military. It was also a conjugal relationship in which two people shared financial resources, supported one another, exchanged domestic services, and from which legal rights and obligations flowed.

THE VALUATION DATE

Legal Framework

39In Kassabian v. Marcarian, 2025 ONCA 239, Madsen J.A. provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles applicable to the determination of parties’ valuation date under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 which at times can be different from the concept of “living separate and apart” for the purpose of the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp). She stated:

15 Finally, spousal separation is central to the equalization of net family properties under the Family Law Act. Equalization is undertaken based, in part, on the value of each spouse’s property as at the “valuation date.” This date is defined in s. 4(1) to mean the earliest of several dates, including “the date the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation.”

16 Thus, the “valuation date” requires not just that the parties live “separate and apart” as understood under the Divorce Act both for the purpose of divorce and the calculation of the period of cohabitation for the purpose of spousal support, but additionally, that there be no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation. This additional requirement in fixing the “valuation date” allows for the possibility that parties are considered separate and apart for purposes under the Divorce Act, yet the valuation date is found to not yet have crystallized; Taylor v. Taylor, 5 R.F.L. (5th) 162 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 9; Strobele v. Strobele(2005), 34 R.F.L. (6th) 111, at para. 29; Al-Sajee , at paras. 32-40. Despite this nuance to the definition of “valuation date,” many decisions use the terms “date of separation”, “separation date,” and “valuation date” interchangeably.

17 Determining when there is no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation requires a careful and objective weighing of a range of factors, including the intentions of the parties as demonstrated by their statements and actions. The central issue is “whether a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would reasonably believe that the parties had a prospect of resuming cohabitation”: see Warren v. Warren, 2019 ONSC 1751, at para. 6; Al-Fatlawi v. Al-Bajawi, 2019 ONSC 7210, at para. 5. The identification of the valuation date will be “tied to that date when the marriage is irretrievably broken down and the resumption of cohabitation is not reasonably in the cards.” Al-Sajee, at para. 39, citing Czepa v. Czepa, 16 R.F.L. (3d) 191 (Ont. H.C.J.), at para. 15, rev’d on other grounds (1990), 26 R.F.L. (3d) 118 (Ont. C.A.).

40The factors that are relevant to this determination include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. These elements may be present in varying degrees, and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal. This analysis is objective, and fact driven. No one factor is determinative, and a global weighing of all relevant factors is required. As stated by Madsen J.A.:

… when it comes to the timing of spousal separation, the element of change should be emphasized. That is, it is the differences or changes in the characteristics of a conjugal relationship at the alleged separation date - changes in shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support, children and societal perception of the couple - that best serve to guide the court in fixing the date of separation or valuation date.

Analysis

41It is not disputed that this relationship was akin to a roller coaster: it had its ups, but it also had many downs. Between March 2015 and April 2016, the parties were effectively separated within the meaning of the Divorce Act. Nonetheless, Simin continued to reside in the matrimonial home, and the parties continued to share and pay their expenses jointly. The evidence clearly establishes that the parties reconciled in April 2016 and thereafter resumed their relationship.

42Although the parties had a serious argument in February 2019, which nearly led to their separation, I find that they ultimately moved past their anger and disappointment and returned to their prior patterns of interaction. I find that the parties’ relationship continued until Simin took concrete steps to move out of the home in October 2020.

43There is significant evidence supporting the existence of a continued relationship until October 2020.

44From a financial perspective, the parties continued to manage their financial affairs in the same manner they had followed since moving in together in September 2013. For the next seven years, the parties filed their income tax returns as married spouses and identified themselves as such. Ahad was named as Simin’s beneficiary on her TFSA and RRSP until after October 2020. It was Simin’s understanding that she was also Ahad’s beneficiary on his RRSP throughout that period. Although Ahad disputes this, I draw a negative inference from his failure to produce evidence that would have supported his assertion that Simin was not his beneficiary. While Ahad supported Simin financially during the early years of the relationship—albeit with the clear expectation of reimbursement—after Ahad retired from the military, it was Simin who supported him for a period when he was unable to maintain employment, during which time she earned a good and stable income.

45From a social perspective, the parties were regarded by Simin’s family, their neighbours, their colleagues, and their employers as husband and wife. In 2017, during Ahad’s posting to Kingston, Simin’s mother travelled from Iran to Canada to visit them, and the parties spent several days with her in Kingston, showing her around the area. Ahad testified to his love and deep appreciation for Simin’s mother, whom he clearly regarded as his mother‑in‑law, although he carefully avoided using that term during his testimony.

46The parties’ social life was limited, largely because Ahad did not enjoy attending social gatherings. Nonetheless, the parties did attend several social events together over the years. They attended a retirement party for a work colleague in the summer of 2017 and Ahad’s office Christmas party in December 2019. They also attended a few neighbourhood gatherings and, on occasion, shared meals with their neighbours or welcomed them into their home for short visits. Several neighbours testified at trial, as did one of Simin’s co‑workers, all of whom confirmed that the parties consistently represented themselves as husband and wife. These witnesses—four in total—also confirmed that they were unaware of any separation until Simin advised them of it in October 2020 or thereafter.

47Following their reconciliation in 2016, the parties spent time together in Kingston and travelled to Barcelona later that year. They engaged in shared activities such as hiking, gardening, watching television, and exploring the Ottawa area on weekends, as well as the Thousand Islands during Ahad’s Kingston posting. They adopted and jointly cared for a pet bird and discussed adopting a second one. They cared for one another during periods of illness. After Ahad retired from the military, he drove Simin to work on a daily basis. Until Simin moved out of the home in October 2020, the parties regularly ate meals together, cooked for one another, and shopped on each other’s behalf. Simin supported Ahad after he lost his military employment in 2018 and assisted him in locating and securing employment in the years that followed.

48Despite their many conflicts and challenges, the parties shared a deep personal connection. During her testimony, Simin produced numerous photographs depicting a spousal relationship between the parties up to the fall of 2020. These included, among others, a Valentine’s Day photograph from 2018 showing the roses Ahad gave Simin; a note from Ahad’s family members thanking the parties for hosting a dinner in 2018; a Christmas card from their neighbours dated 2019; photographs of a trip to Niagara Falls in June 2019 to celebrate Ahad’s birthday; a photograph of the parties embracing at Ahad’s office Christmas party in December 2019; and a photograph of Simin with horses taken by Ahad during an outing in the Ottawa area in September 2020.

49Simin also tendered numerous text messages and email exchanges spanning several years, in which Ahad addressed her using terms of endearment, used heart emojis, and expressed affection and love. The parties exchanged gifts, cards, and other tokens of affection, and planned activities intended to please one another. Ahad’s criticisms of Simin were those made by a spouse, not a roommate, as were Simin’s criticisms of Ahad.

50The only witness called by Ahad to support his position that the parties were merely roommates was his sister, Vahideh. I did not find Vahideh’s evidence to be credible, for the following reasons.

51Vahideh was the only family member with whom Ahad maintained a relationship. She resided in the UAE during her adult life and met the parties only once throughout the duration of their relationship, when she travelled to Canada in the summer of 2014. At that time, the parties had been together for approximately one year and had just married. Vahideh had no personal knowledge of the nature of the parties’ relationship thereafter, other than what Ahad conveyed to her. Accordingly, her testimony was not based on her own observations but rather on her brother’s representations. She was clearly aligned with Ahad, as evidenced by her admission that, after Simin commenced this litigation, she hired a private investigator for the purpose of “digging dirt” on Simin. She also expressed her belief that Simin’s family was in dire financial need and that Simin was attempting to use Ahad to resolve her brothers’ alleged debt obligations.

52I do not find Vahideh to have been a neutral or objective witness.

53Following the parties’ significant fall‑out in February 2019—which prompted Simin to write the February 24, 2019, letter to Ahad— the parties clearly reconciled, as evidenced by their discussions about purchasing a new home closer to Simin’s workplace. Ms. Canonico, the realtor who worked with the parties in the spring and summer of 2019, testified at trial. She confirmed that, throughout her dealings with them, Ahad and Simin consistently represented themselves as husband and wife. At the outset, Ahad advised her that he was interested only in properties located within 40 kilometers of their existing home, due to the location of Simin’s workplace. Although Simin initially attended showings with Ahad, she gradually stopped doing so. On October 22, 2020, Ahad advised Ms. Canonico that he was prepared to consider properties located on the east side of the city, including in Eastern Ontario.

54It is not disputed that the parties were intimate only a handful of times during their seven‑year period of cohabitation. From a cultural and religious standpoint, sexual intimacy was not possible for Simin prior to marriage. Following marriage, it became apparent that Simin experienced significant challenges with sexual intimacy, and Ahad chose not to pressure her. The parties slept in separate bedrooms for most of their relationship, each offering different explanations for that arrangement.

55Simin testified that the emotional dynamics of the relationship often made intimacy difficult. She explained that frequent conflict prevented her from engaging in intimacy when she felt angry or resentful. She also stated that Ahad frequently returned home angry or stressed, which further undermined intimacy. Ahad testified that Simin had disclosed being a victim of sexual assault in the past and that their first sexual encounter was “traumatic” for him. Thereafter, intimacy became uncomfortable and challenging for both parties.

56Although Ahad relied heavily on the parties’ limited sexual intimacy to support his assertion that they were merely roommates, sexual intimacy is not a prerequisite to the existence of a marriage. The lack of sexual intimacy was a constant feature of this relationship and remained unchanged from marriage until physical separation. The parties slept in separate bedrooms from the outset and rarely shared a bed. Nonetheless, neither party pursued other romantic relationships during their seven years together, and they maintained an attitude of fidelity throughout.

57I find that the parties were engaged in a conjugal relationship throughout, notwithstanding their one‑year separation in 2015–2016. I further find that they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation when Simin moved out of the home on October 23, 2020. At that point, the parties ceased sharing expenses and took clear steps to sever their social and financial ties. After October 23, 2020, Ahad removed Simin from his phone plan; neighbours were advised of the separation; the parties removed one another as beneficiaries under their employment and investment accounts; and they each moved forward independently.

THE FEBRUARY 24, 2019, ALLEGED AGREEMENT

58Ahad’s alternative position at trial is that the content of Simin’s February 24, 2019, letter constitutes a valid agreement between the parties— one in which they agreed to override the equalization scheme prescribed by the Family Law Act and replace it with their own property division arrangement. Moreover, Ahad argues that the terms set out in the February 24, 2019, letter written by Simin are identical to those the parties allegedly agreed upon when they first moved in together, and which they meticulously followed throughout their cohabitation.

59I disagree.

60While it was open to Ahad to insist that the parties adhere to very strict financial practices during their marriage, in order to displace the mandatory equalization scheme imposed by the Family Law Act, he was required to establish the existence of a valid domestic contract.

61Pursuant to s. 55 of the Act, a domestic contract is unenforceable unless it is made in writing, signed by the parties, and witnessed. Moreover, even an otherwise valid domestic contract may be set aside if a party failed to disclose significant debts or assets, if a party did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract, or in accordance with the law of contract.

62I find as a fact that the letter sent by Simin to Ahad—whether or not Ahad signed it on that day—was nothing more than an ultimatum: a desperate attempt by Simin to shock Ahad in the hope that he might change his behaviour. The letter was written without any knowledge on Simin’s part of her legal rights, without any financial disclosure, and it was not witnessed. This purported contract was never acknowledged by Ahad at the time he received it and was never acted upon by either party. Indeed, the first occasion on which Ahad relied upon this letter was when Simin commenced this litigation in the spring of 2022.

63I do not accept Ahad’s submission that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, stands for the proposition that documents such as the February 24, 2019, letter may be treated as a relevant factor in determining whether equalization should be ordered.

64I find that the February 24, 2019, letter has no impact on the parties’ statutory right to the equalization of their net family property.

UNEQUAL DIVISION OF NET FAMILY PROPERTY BASED ON UNCONSCIONABILITY

65Ahad feels that it would be utterly unfair for Simin to receive a 50 percent share of his pre‑marital life savings, which he invested in the purchase of what ultimately became the parties’ matrimonial home. I can certainly understand how devastating this would be for him.

66However, pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law Act, the home occupied by married spouses at the time of their separation—the matrimonial home—is accorded a very special status. Among other things, the Act provides that, regardless of title, both spouses have an equal right to possession of the matrimonial home during and after the marriage. In addition, the value of a party’s interest in a matrimonial home at the date of the marriage may not be deducted from that party’s net family property for the purposes of equalization (s. 4).

67There are strong historical reasons for this special status, rooted in both legal history and social change, and in particular the legislature’s efforts to remedy longstanding inequities affecting married spouses, traditionally women (see Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 SCR 813, at paras. 56–65).

68While such historical inequities may be less of a concern in more modern marriages, the fact remains that the law makes no exception to the special status of the matrimonial home, including its treatment for equalization purposes, unless the circumstances fall within one of the categories enumerated in s. 5(6) of the Act:

Variation of share

(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.

69Other than subparagraph (g), which was addressed earlier, none of the circumstances listed in s. 5(6) of the Act applies in this case, with the possible exception of subparagraph (h), namely the fact that Ahad alone contributed $130,000 of his pre‑marriage funds toward the purchase of the matrimonial home.

70In order to establish entitlement to an unequal division of net family property, Ahad was required to demonstrate that it would be unconscionable, in the circumstances of this case, to equalize the parties’ net family property in accordance with the Act. However, a party cannot characterize as unconscionable a result that the statute expressly contemplates and intends.

71Finally, it is important to note that between the date of the parties’ separation in October 2020 and the sale of the matrimonial home in June 2022, the value of the home increased by $315,000—nearly three times the amount of the down payment Ahad contributed at purchase. As the sole registered owner, Ahad retained the entire post‑separation increase in value. Had he not been married to Simin, he would have been required to sell the home in 2014 when he was posted to Kingston, and he would not have benefited from this significant market appreciation. In light of these facts, it is difficult to identify any unfairness in this outcome, let alone unconscionability.

EQUALIZATION

72As stated earlier, there are only a few areas of dispute between the parties with respect to the equalization of their net family property. I will address each issue in turn.

Notional disposition costs of the home

73Ahad seeks to apply a realtor commission rate of five percent, even though it is undisputed that when he sold the home in June 2022, he paid a commission of only four percent. He submits that, as of the date of separation, it was reasonable to assume that a five‑percent commission would be payable.

74I see no rationale whatsoever for applying a five‑percent commission rate when the actual commission paid upon sale—less than two years after the parties’ separation—was four percent. In accordance with the principles set out in Sengmueller v. Sengmueller, a deduction of $26,442 (inclusive of HST) is allowed, representing the commission actually paid by Ahad.

Outstanding mortgage on the valuation date

75Ahad relied on the mortgage balance as it stood at the end of 2020, rather than the balance as of the actual valuation date. In closing submissions, Simin’s counsel provided mathematical calculations confirming that, as of October 23, 2020, the outstanding mortgage balance would have been $223,095. I accept that figure.

Date of marriage notional disposition costs on Ahad’s home buyer plan

76Relying on the analysis of Jarvis J. in Lawrence v. Lawrence, 2017 ONSC 431 (at para. 38), I find that the following values are properly included in and deducted from Ahad’s net family property in relation to the RRSP funds transferred into a Home Buyers’ Plan to purchase the home.

Date of marriage:

a. A “property" balance of the RRSP of $29,639.80

b. A notional disposition of 8.9% on the whole amount, being $2,637.94

c. A notional repayment obligation, as a deduction of $25,000

Valuation date:

a. A "property" balance of $44,542.52 ($29,541.52 + $15,001)

b. A notional disposition of 8.9% on the whole amount, being $3,964.28

c. A notional payment obligation, as a deduction of $15,001.10

Monies held by Simin on the date of marriage

77Simin asserts that she held at least $8,000 in her bank account on the date of the parties’ marriage. She states that, as a condition of her student visa, she was required to demonstrate sufficient assets and is therefore confident that her chequing account contained at least that amount at the time.

78At the date of marriage, Simin had been residing in Canada for approximately two years. Her testimony regarding the balance in her account at that time was vague and largely speculative. I find that Simin failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities or with sufficient certainty, that she held $8,000 in her bank account on the date of marriage.

Funds allegedly hidden by Ahad

79Simin seeks to add $8,600 to Ahad’s assets as of the valuation date, based on her belief that he concealed funds by failing to fully disclose cash amounts held in his Primerica accounts.

80While the evidence before me raised some suspicion as to whether Ahad may have failed to disclose one bank account, I am not persuaded that this was the case. In any event, determining the amount that such an account might have contained would have required pure speculation.

Equalization payment

81I find that the net family property statement prepared by Simin and attached as Schedule A accurately reflects the parties’ assets and debts as of the date of marriage and the valuation date (October 23, 2020), with the following exceptions:

• Simin’s request to include $8,000 allegedly held in her bank account at the date of marriage is denied; and

• Simin’s request to add $8,600 to Ahad’s assets at the valuation date, allegedly held in an undisclosed account, is also denied.

82The combined effect of these adjustments is a $8,300 reduction in the equalization payment sought by Simin.

83I find that Ahad owes Simin an equalization payment of $243,654.72. As an advance of $60,000 has already been paid, the remaining balance owing is $183,654.72.

Pre-judgment interest

84I see no reason why Simin should be denied pre‑judgment interest on the outstanding equalization payment, at the rate prescribed by s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C. 43, being 2.0 percent. In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to order pre‑judgment interest from the date Simin commenced this proceeding (late April 2022) to the present date, rounded to four years.

85In calculating the pre‑judgment interest owing, Simin relied on the average annual pre‑judgment interest rate calculated yearly, from 2020 to the present. This approach is incorrect. Pursuant to s. 127 of the Courts of Justice Act, the applicable pre‑judgment interest rate is the rate in effect on the first day of the last month of the quarter preceding the quarter in which the proceeding was commenced. In this case, the correct rate is 2.0 percent, which applies for the entire period.

86Pre‑judgment interest in the amount of $14,692.36 is awarded to Simin, calculated as follows:

• Outstanding principal: $183,654.72

• Annual interest at 2.0 percent: $3,673.09

• Period from April 27, 2022, to April 26, 2026 (four years): $14,692.36

87The total amount of $198,347.08 shall be released forthwith to Simin from the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home currently held in trust.

88The balance of the trust funds shall remain held pending a determination of the outstanding issue of costs, subject to any agreement between the parties.

COSTS

89Simin is the successful party in this trial and as such, she is presumed entitled to her costs on a partial indemnity basis. If the parties are unable to agree, I will accept written cost submissions not exceeding eight (8) pages, double-spaced, including a Bill of Costs and relevant offers to settle in accordance with the following timelines:

• Simin to serve and file by May 20;

• Ahad to serve and file by June 3;

• Simin’s brief reply, if any, to be served and filed by June 10.

The Honourable Justice Audet

Date: May 5, 2026

CITATION: Razavi v. Golzari, 2026 ONSC 2686