Domestic contracts, such as cohabitation agreements, marriage contracts, and separation agreements, play a crucial role in managing and settling matters in a relationship. However, there may be circumstances where one party wishes to challenge the terms or validity of these contracts. Ontario's Family Law Act (FLA) sets out the grounds for setting aside a domestic contract.

A Joint Family Venture is a legal construct that is invoked to typify a unique kind of relationship among two or more individuals. For the court to recognize a JFV, the existence of four pivotal factors is essential: mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, and priority of the family. These elements also encompass considerations such as whether the parties worked collaboratively towards common goals, used pooled resources for family purposes, and whether there was a mutual decision to raise children together. Each of these factors, while distinct, often overlap and interlace, painting a comprehensive picture of the relationship under scrutiny.

In Ontario, cohabitation is defined as "to live together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage.” This inclusive definition extends to same-sex couples as well. The Family Law Act (FLA) of Ontario provides certain guidelines to ascertain whether a couple is cohabiting. These guidelines encompass both apparent factors like living and sleeping together, and less evident ones such as the sharing of household tasks. The evaluation of cohabitation often hinges on a combination of these factors, making it a complex process that requires a nuanced understanding of the law.

In Ontario, the division of property following the breakdown of a relationship between unmarried, or common-law, couples can be a complex issue. Unlike for married couples, there is no governing legislation for property division when common-law partners separate. This often results in confusion and misunderstanding, making the process even more difficult. To help shed some light on this issue, let's delve deeper into what this entails.

The primary objective is to equally distribute the net family property, there are instances when the court may order an unequal division. This might seem contradictory, but the Family Law Act has established a series of factors that can justify such a decision.

When it comes to dividing property between spouses after a separation or divorce, the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, provides a legal framework for equalization. This system does not entitle either spouse to specific assets, but instead gives the spouse with a lower net family property a monetary equalization payment. This post will explore the various methods available for making this payment, their potential tax implications and the flexibility allowed under the Act.

The equalization payment is not paid until the final resolution of the property claims. This means that both parties have to wait until the conclusion of the legal process to receive or make the payment. The idea is to ensure that all aspects of the property claim are thoroughly examined and appropriately addressed before the payment is made.

In the world of family law, property valuation is a critical and often contentious issue. It is particularly complex when it comes to assets such as real property or business interests, whose value is not as straightforward as, for example, a bank account's. This post will explore three key aspects of property valuation: the onus to value assets, the difference between resale and replacement value, and the valuation of pensions.

The term 'Net Family Property' is specified in the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 4(1). It encapsulates the value of all the property a spouse owns on the valuation date, after accounting for the spouse’s debts and other liabilities.

Contingent liabilities are potential financial obligations that may occur due to certain events or conditions. In the context of the Family Law Act, spouses are allowed to deduct these liabilities from their property's value on both the valuation date and the marriage date. This deduction can significantly impact the net family property calculation, which forms the basis for property division upon the dissolution of a marriage.

NFP refers to the value of all the assets that a spouse has accumulated from the date of the marriage to the valuation date, after subtracting the debts and liabilities. It is not merely a total of assets but includes several considerations such as the valuation of specific assets or liabilities and deductions or exclusions of certain items. The resulting figure, though arrived at individually, is used to determine an equalization payment, which is paid by the spouse with the higher NFP to the one with the lower NFP.

Equalization deductions come into play when a marriage ends, either through divorce or separation. As per Section 4(1) of the Family Law Act, a spouse can deduct debts and other liabilities, along with the value of property they owned on the date of marriage from their net family property for the purposes of equalization. However, the onus of proving a deduction lies on the spouse claiming the deduction. Hence, it is crucial for a spouse to maintain detailed records of their financial position on the date of marriage to substantiate their claim.

A key component of this is understanding the concept of 'excluded property'. Excluded property refers to certain types of property that are not included in the net family property calculation, which is the method used to divide property between spouses during a divorce or separation.

Part I of the Family Law Act forms the basis for claims made by married spouses. The Act acknowledges marriage as a partnership and asserts that wealth accumulated during the marriage should be equally divided upon its breakdown. This provision is designed to ensure an orderly settlement and provide certainty following the dissolution of a marital relationship.

One such exception is the status of Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) pensions. According to a Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling in the case of Lowe v. Lowe, WSIB pensions are not considered "property" under the FLA. This is significant because, in general, pensions are included in the net family property calculation during a divorce or separation. However, the different treatment of WSIB pensions means that they are not factored into this calculation.

The calculation of net family property is determined by the spouse’s valuation date value (the value of all the spouse’s property on the valuation date minus all debts and liabilities on the valuation date) and the spouse’s date of marriage value (the value of all the spouse’s property at the date of marriage minus all debts and liabilities at the date of marriage). The date of marriage value is then subtracted from the valuation date value to arrive at a spouse’s net family property.