“Under s. 9(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, the Court has discretion to order advances on equalization payments: See Zagdanski v. Zagdanski 2001 CanLII 27981 (ONSC), [2001] O.J. No. 2886; Mikhail v Mikhail, 2023 ONSC 5289. The factors to consider are summarized in Mikhail at para. 20 as follows:
▪ Whether there will be little or no realistic chance that the amount of the contemplated advance will exceed the ultimate equalization amount;
▪ Whether there will, therefore, be some considerable degree of certainty about the right to, and likely minimum amount of, an equalization payment;
▪ Whether there is a need, not necessarily in the sense of poverty, but a reasonable requirement for funds in advance of the final resolution of the equalization issue, including funds to enable the continued prosecution or defence of the action; and
▪ Whether there may be other circumstances such that fairness requires some relief for the applicant; frequently, but not necessarily, there will have been a delay in the action, deliberate or otherwise, prejudicing the applicant by, for example, running up the cost.”
Vargas-Hernandez v. Graff-Guerrero, 2024 ONSC 4164 (CanLII) at 22