“Property is equalized under the [Family Law Act] through the three- step process set out by Cory J. in Rawluk v. Rawluk, 1990 CanLII 152 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70, [1990] S.C.J. No. 4. First, a court determines the ownership of property under s. 4. Second, it calculates the equalization payment under s. 5(1). Third, and only after a determination of the first two steps, will a court turn its mind to what Cory J. described as “a last avenue of judicial discretion” provided by s. 5(6) to award an amount having regard to a spouse’s unconscionable conduct. This approach of determining ownership, equalization, and unconsionability, in that order, was confirmed in Berdette v. Berdette (1991), 1991 CanLII 7061 (ON CA), 3 O.R. (3d) 513, [1991] O.J. No. 788 (C.A.).
Clearly, a reapportionment of net family property under s. 5(6) is not a declaration about ownership of property, but only about distributing the value of the parties’ net family properties to redress unconsionable conduct. This is reinforced by the legislative restriction of s. 5(6)’s application to certain enumerated circumstances, none of which have to do with ownership, but all of which relate to fault-based conduct on the part of the other spouse. See Hamilton v. Hamilton, 1996 CanLII 599 (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 2634, 92 O.A.C. 103 (C.A.) and Brett v. Brett (1999), 1999 CanLII 3711 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (3d) 61, [1999] O.J. No. 1384 (C.A.).
Accordingly, a s. 5(6) reapportionment is only available on those rare occasions when a party is able to meet the high threshold required to establish unconscionability. Only in such an exceptional case does the legislature give a court the discretion to fashion a remedy.”