A New Take on Equalization and the Matrimonial Home
- Shankar Law Office
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
In Razavi v. Golzari, 2026 ONSC 2686, the Ontario Superior Court addressed a dispute over equalization of net family property following the breakdown of a difficult seven-year marriage between SR and AG.
The central issue was not the calculation itself, but whether the wife should receive any equalization payment at all.
The husband argued that:
The marriage was merely one of convenience,
The parties functioned only as roommates or landlord/tenant,
and that equalization would be unconscionable because he alone contributed significant pre-marital savings toward the matrimonial home.
Justice Audet rejected those arguments and found:
The marriage was genuine and legally valid;
The parties remained in a conjugal relationship until October 23, 2020;
No valid domestic contract displaced Ontario’s equalization regime;
Equalization was not unconscionable.
The court ordered the husband to pay:
an equalization payment of $243,654.72,
less a prior $60,000 advance,
plus prejudgment interest, for a final amount of $198,347.08 payable from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.
Analysis
1. The Court Rejected the “Roommate Marriage” Argument
The husband’s primary position was that the parties were never truly spouses and instead operated as roommates with a financial arrangement.
The court found this characterization lacked credibility. Justice Audet pointed to:
shared social life,
emotional intimacy,
mutual caregiving,
travel together,
affectionate messages,
public presentation as husband and wife,
and joint domestic life over many years.
The judge was especially critical of the husband’s attempt to reinterpret obviously romantic behaviour as mere friendship between roommates, including:
Valentine’s roses,
affectionate text messages,
kissing emojis,
birthday cards addressed “To My Wife.”
The decision strongly reinforces that:
Marriages are assessed objectively through the parties’ conduct,
Not by one spouse’s later attempt to reframe the relationship after separation.
2. Financial Rigidity Did Not Eliminate the Marriage
A major feature of the relationship was the husband’s extreme financial control. The parties meticulously tracked expenses and divided costs 50/50.
However, the court emphasized that:
Strict financial arrangements do not negate a conjugal relationship,
Nor do they displace statutory family law rights.
Even though the parties:
maintained separate bedrooms,
rarely engaged in sexual intimacy,
and carefully accounted for expenses, the court still found a valid marriage existed.
The judgment is important because it recognizes that modern marriages can take unconventional forms while still attracting full legal protections under the Family Law Act.
3. The Purported “Agreement” Was Not Enforceable
The husband relied heavily on a handwritten 2019 letter in which the wife outlined what she would seek if they divorced.
The court rejected this as a binding agreement because:
It lacked proper legal formalities,
There was no financial disclosure,
It was unwitnessed,
And it was never acted upon.
Justice Audet treated the document as:
an emotional ultimatum during a conflict,
and not a valid domestic contract capable of overriding Ontario’s equalization scheme.
This portion of the case highlights the strict requirements for the enforceability of domestic contracts under Ontario family law.
4. Matrimonial Home Protections Were Central
The husband argued it was unfair that the wife could share in the value of a home purchased largely using his pre-marital savings.
The court acknowledged the emotional force of that argument but emphasized that Ontario law gives the matrimonial home special status:
A spouse cannot deduct the marriage-date value of the matrimonial home from net family property calculations.
The court further noted:
The husband benefited significantly from remaining married because it allowed him to keep the home during military relocation,
And he alone retained substantial post-separation appreciation in the property’s value.
Accordingly, the judge found the result was not unconscionable.
5. Credibility Played a Major Role
This was fundamentally a credibility-driven case. The judge expressly preferred the wife’s evidence over the husband’s.
The court found the husband:
intentionally distorted facts,
changed positions late in litigation,
and tailored evidence to avoid equalization obligations.
In contrast, the wife’s evidence aligned more consistently with:
documentary records,
witness testimony,
and the parties’ objective conduct over time.
6. Broader Significance
This case is a strong illustration of several important Ontario family law principles:
the broad legal meaning of a conjugal relationship,
the powerful statutory protections surrounding matrimonial homes,
the high threshold for proving “unconscionability,”
and the strict formal requirements for domestic contracts.
The decision also demonstrates that courts will look beyond unusual marital dynamics -including separate bedrooms, limited intimacy, or rigid financial arrangements - and focus on the overall reality of the relationship.
At Shankar Law, we enjoy reading and researching. Reading and updating provide us with the information and knowledge needed to stay abreast of the latest case law and analysis, which we can then apply to the facts of a new case. This means you can come to us, trusting us with using our knowledge and expertise to help you.
We are happy to guide and assist you at any of our four offices in Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Wiarton, and Kincardine. In fact, anywhere in Ontario. We look forward to working with you. Professional legal support is just a call away at 226-256-8054. Our Family Law team is skilled, thorough, and reliable, making the complex seem simple.
Providing clients with effective legal services in Grey, Bruce, and Huron Counties. Taking the first step can lead to a fair resolution and peace of mind.
