Incomplete Financial Disclosure and NFP

Recently, the superior court delved into a case involving net family property equalization, but where one of the parties had not provided sufficient financial disclosure.

Degagne v. Paquette, 2026 ONSC 1145

TD (Applicant) and OP (Respondent) were married on July 4, 2008, and separated on April 8, 2017. They have four children, who live with Ms. TD pursuant to a 2019 Ontario Court of Justice order requiring Mr. OP to pay $1,076 per month in child support, which he failed to pay voluntarily.

In 2019, Ms. TD initiated proceedings seeking a divorce and equalization of net family property (NFP) under the Divorce Act and Ontario Family Law Act. The divorce was granted in 2024, leaving only the property equalization dispute.

Mr. OP repeatedly failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations, resulting in his pleadings being struck in 2022, except for his NFP statement. The matter proceeded largely as an uncontested trial, with evidence primarily from Ms. TD.

Major assets in dispute included:

-Several properties in West Nipissing are owned by Mr. OP.

-A jointly owned 61-acre property was sold during proceedings.

-The matrimonial home

-Farm equipment used in Mr. OP’s farming operations

-Mr. OP’s pension (LIRA)

-Ms. TD’s rental property in North Bay

Because the respondent failed to disclose financial information, the court was forced to estimate certain values using appraisals, property records, and financial statements.

Issue

How should the parties’ net family property be equalized under the Family Law Act, given incomplete financial disclosure and disputes regarding asset valuation?

Rule

Under Ontario’s Family Law Act, each spouse’s Net Family Property (NFP) is calculated as:

-The value of property owned at the date of separation minus debts and deductions (including property owned at the date of marriage, except for the matrimonial home).

-The spouse with the greater NFP must pay half the difference to the other spouse as an equalization payment.

-Courts may estimate values where one party fails to provide the required financial disclosure.

Analysis

The court examined several key assets:

-Real Property

-Mr. OP owned multiple properties in West Nipissing, including:

-Snow’s Farm

-The Greenhouse Property

-The matrimonial home

Due to incomplete information, the court used property assessments, appraisals, and later sale data to estimate the values as of the date of separation.

Joint Property

A 61-acre property jointly owned by the parties was sold during litigation. The court attributed half of the net sale proceeds to each spouse, while also accounting for the debt used to purchase the property.

Other Assets

Additional assets included:

-Farm equipment, valued at approximately $134,500

-Mr. Paquette’s pension, valued at approximately $115,000 at separation

-Ms. Degagne’s North Bay rental property, which had little appreciation due to severe tenant damage

-The court accepted many of Ms. TD’s valuations due to the respondent’s lack of disclosure.

Holding

The court held that Mr. OP’s net family property significantly exceeded Ms. TD’s, requiring an equalization payment.

Mr. OP’s NFP: $583,473.56

Ms. TD’s NFP: $123,680.86

Difference: $459,792.70

Equalization payment: $229,896.35

After accounting for advances already paid, $160,239.14 remained owing to Ms. TD.

Costs

The court awarded costs to Ms. TD due to Mr. OP’s non-compliance and litigation conduct.

Total costs awarded: $20,433.46 plus additional costs of $2,956.90, payable from funds held by the court.

Significance of the Case

This decision highlights several key principles in Ontario family law:

Financial disclosure is critical. Failure to disclose can result in the court striking pleadings and relying on estimates.

Courts may infer or estimate asset values where one party obstructs the process.

Equalization under the Family Law Act ensures fairness, even when assets are unevenly distributed.

Litigation delays and non-cooperation can significantly increase cost consequences for the non-compliant party.

Ultimately, the court emphasized fairness and ensured that Ms. TD received her proper share of the marital property.

If you live in Huron, Bruce, or Grey Counties and need help, professional legal support can make a big difference. You don’t have to face this alone. With the right guidance, you can protect your interests and start a new chapter with peace of mind.

If you want to learn more or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our Family Law Team at Shankar Law Office. Let our trusted family law professionals guide you through this process. Now with four locations to better serve you in Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Kincardine and Wiarton. Our staff is skilled, thorough and reliable. We make the complex seem simple.