<\/p>\n
By: Ashley Iyathurai and Jeff Li<\/strong><\/p>\n \u514d\u8d23\u58f0\u660e <\/strong>\u672c\u6587\u6240\u542b\u4fe1\u606f\u4e3a\u4e00\u822c\u6027\u4fe1\u606f\uff0c\u4e0d\u6784\u6210\u6cd5\u5f8b\u5efa\u8bae\u3002\u5982\u679c\u60a8\u5bf9\u5bb6\u5ead\u6cd5\u95ee\u9898\u6709\u4efb\u4f55\u7591\u95ee\uff0c\u8bf7\u8054\u7cfb\u674e\u6770\u8f89\u5f8b\u5e08\u4e8b\u52a1\u6240\u6216\u5176\u4ed6\u7ecf\u9a8c\u4e30\u5bcc\u7684\u5bb6\u5ead\u5f8b\u5e08\u3002.<\/p>\n When married couples separate or divorce, they will usually divide their properties. In Ontario, the division of matrimonial property<\/a> is based on the principle of\u00a0 equalization of net family property. Parties may make an agreement regarding property division<\/a>, or they can resort to the court if they do not want to negotiate or no agreement can be reached. Under the Family Law Act, <\/em>a claim for equalization cannot be brought after the earliest of:<\/p>\n The purpose of this limitation period is to grant separating spouses some degree of finality and resolution so that they can each move on with their respective lives.<\/p>\n Despite this provision, the Act <\/em>does carve out an extension. Under section 2(8), a court has discretion to grant an extension where:<\/p>\n The party seeking the extension must be able to prove these criteria on a balance of probabilities.<\/p>\n Apparent grounds for relief <\/u><\/p>\n \u6839\u636e \u884c\u52a8, <\/em>the spouse with the lower net family property is entitled to an equalization payment of half the difference between their net family properties. The party seeking an extension of the limitation period must show that there are apparent grounds for making an equalization claim.<\/p>\n \u5728 Donnelly v Donnelly,<\/em> the wife sought an extension to bring a claim for equalization. However, the court noted that this claim was akin to a \u2018fishing expedition.\u2019 The wife already had information about the parties\u2019 assets, and she had received substantial financial disclosure from the husband. Furthermore, the wife was educated, and had received legal advice prior to signing the parties\u2019 Agreement.<\/p>\n Good faith <\/u><\/p>\n \u5728 Hart v Hart, <\/em>the court noted that to prove \u2018good faith\u2019, \u201cit must be shown that the moving party acted honestly and with no ulterior motive.\u201d The court went on to note that merely failing to make enquiries should not negate \u2018good faith\u2019, provided that this does not constitute willful blindness or \u201cfall below community expectations.\u201d<\/p>\n \u5728 Busch v Amos, <\/em>the court also considered the definition of \u2018good faith\u2019 noting that it was not enough to merely state ignorance. Instead, the moving party must prove that they had \u201cno reason to make enquiries about those rights.\u201d<\/p>\n \u5728 Donnelly v Donnelly, <\/em>the court held that the evidence did not support a finding that the wife\u2019s delay was incurred in good faith. The wife had received legal advice from three lawyers after the parties\u2019 separation. The wife had acknowledged and confirmed that she had received advice and that she had understood the nature of the agreement she was signing.\u00a0 Despite the fact that the wife had been warned to get accounting and tax advice, she did not do so. The wife had been advised about the agreement, as well as her right to equalization. The court found that the wife was not ignorant of her rights to equalization. Rather, the wife had been fully advised of her rights, and yet chose not to make any other claims.<\/p>\n Resulting prejudice <\/u><\/p>\n The language in the Act <\/em>requires \u2018substantial prejudice.\u2019 The moving party must establish that the belated equalization claim will not cause such prejudice to either party. In Busch v Amos, <\/em>the court noted that \u201ca spouse who arranges his financial affairs following the separation or divorce upon the assumption that matters between him and a former spouse are resolved, is entitled to rely on the limitation period in the Family Law Act.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n \u5728 Paulsen v Paulsen,<\/em> the court granted an extension, allowing the applicant to make an equalization claim. The court noted that the respondent had failed to provide any specific evidence about the prejudice he would suffer if the limitation period were extended. The court also held that the wife\u2019s failure to bring forth an equalization claim had \u201cmade little difference to him financially.\u201d<\/p>\n Limitation periods have a significant impact in the family law context. It is important to initiate a claim for equalization on a timely basis to protect your rights. Contact the Law Office of Jeff Jiehui Li to discuss how the limitation period may affect your claims.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u76f8\u5173\u6587\u7ae0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u5b89\u5927\u7565\u7701\u7684\u5bb6\u5ead\u8d22\u4ea7\u5206\u5272<\/a><\/p>\n Jeff Li\u2019s Blogs on Spousal Support<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n