Understanding Equalization Payments in Ontario: Insights from

In Razavi v. Golzari, 2026 ONSC 2686, the Ontario Superior Court examined whether a wife was entitled to an equalization payment after the breakdown of a challenging seven-year marriage. The husband contended that, despite their legal marriage, they functioned more like roommates or landlord-tenant equivalents. He argued that equalization under Ontario’s Family Law Act should not apply. Additionally, he claimed 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.

Court's Rejection of Arguments

The court dismissed these arguments. Justice Audet determined that the marriage was legally valid and functionally conjugal, despite its unusual dynamics. These included separate bedrooms, limited sexual intimacy, and rigid financial arrangements. Evidence showed that the parties consistently represented themselves socially, financially, and legally as spouses. They reconciled after prior separations, managed household affairs together, traveled, and provided emotional and financial support to one another. This commitment lasted until the wife permanently moved out on October 23, 2020.

The court also ruled that the February 24, 2019, handwritten note from the wife was not a valid domestic contract. It lacked legal formalities, financial disclosure, witnessing, and informed consent. Instead, it was viewed as an emotional ultimatum written during a conflict, not a binding agreement that could override the Family Law Act's equalization regime.

Equalization Not Unconscionable

Justice Audet 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. It noted that the husband also benefited financially from remaining married, including avoiding the forced sale of the home and retaining substantial post-separation appreciation in property value.

After resolving 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. After deducting a prior advance of $60,000, the remaining balance was $183,654.72 plus prejudgment interest.

Analysis of the Case

This case is significant because it reinforces that Ontario family courts focus on the objective reality of a relationship rather than a party’s later attempts to recharacterize the marriage for financial advantage. The husband's portrayal of the relationship as merely “roommates” was undermined by years of evidence showing marital conduct. This included 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.

Legal Requirements for Domestic Contracts

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. They must demonstrate informed, voluntary agreement.

Understanding Unconscionability

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

Assessing Valuation Dates

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.

Seeking Legal Assistance

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.

If you need assistance navigating the complexities of family law, don’t hesitate to reach out. We are here to help you understand your rights and options.