Equalization and Objective Reality

In   Razavi v. Golzari, 2026 ONSC 2686, the Ontario Superior Court considered whether a wife was entitled to an equalization payment following the breakdown of a difficult seven-year marriage. The husband argued that, despite being legally married, the parties were essentially only roommates or landlord-tenant equivalents, and therefore equalization under Ontario’s Family Law Act should not apply. He also argued that a handwritten 2019 document constituted an agreement altering property rights and that equalization would be unconscionable because he alone funded the matrimonial home with pre-marital savings.  

The court rejected these arguments. Justice Audet found that the marriage was legally valid and functionally conjugal despite unusual dynamics, including separate bedrooms, limited sexual intimacy, and highly rigid financial arrangements. The evidence demonstrated that the parties consistently represented themselves socially, financially, and legally as spouses; reconciled after prior separations; jointly managed household affairs; travelled together; and supported one another emotionally and financially, remaining in a committed relationship until the wife permanently moved out on October 23, 2020.  

The court also held that the February 24, 2019, handwritten note from the wife was not a valid domestic contract because it lacked legal formalities, financial disclosure, witnessing, and informed consent. It was characterized instead as an emotional ultimatum written during a conflict rather than a binding agreement overriding the Family Law Act equalization regime.  

Justice Audet further concluded that equalization was not “unconscionable” under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, despite the husband’s significant premarital contribution toward the home. The court emphasized the special statutory status of the matrimonial home and noted that the husband had also greatly benefited financially from remaining married, including avoiding the forced sale of the home and retaining substantial post-separation appreciation in property value.  

After resolving valuation disputes regarding mortgage balances, RRSP home buyer plan calculations, and alleged undisclosed assets, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization payment of $243,654.72, less a prior advance of $60,000, leaving a balance of $183,654.72 plus prejudgment interest.  

Analysis

This case is significant because it reinforces that Ontario family courts will focus on the objective reality of a relationship rather than a party’s later attempt to recharacterize the marriage for financial advantage. The husband’s attempt to portray the relationship as merely “roommates” was undermined by years of evidence showing marital conduct, including shared social identity, financial interdependence, emotional support, and mutual caregiving. The court treated the relationship holistically rather than relying on isolated factors such as separate bedrooms or limited sexual relations.  

The decision also highlights the strict legal requirements for domestic contracts in Ontario family law. Informal handwritten notes created during emotionally charged disputes are unlikely to displace statutory equalization rights unless they satisfy the formal requirements of the Family Law Act and demonstrate informed, voluntary agreement.  

Another important aspect is the court’s discussion of unconscionability. Justice Audet emphasized that a result cannot be considered unconscionable merely because it appears financially harsh where the statute itself expressly contemplates that outcome. This is especially true regarding the matrimonial home, which receives exceptional treatment under Ontario family law.  

Finally, the case demonstrates how courts assess “valuation date” disputes. The court carefully distinguished temporary separations and relationship breakdowns from the point at which there was truly “no reasonable prospect” of reconciliation. The parties’ repeated reconciliations and continued marital conduct delayed the valuation date until the wife’s final physical departure from the home in October 2020.  

These are all important analytical areas in family law that we at Shankar Law can guide and assist clients with. We look forward to serving you. We work throughout Ontario. Now with four locations to better serve you in Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Wiarton, and Kincardine. 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.