“The equalization provision is a feature of modern family law reform intended to resolve, inter alia, historical exclusion of women from property rights and the undervaluing of their contribution to the household economy in “traditional” marriages. Subsection 5(7) is a legislated explanatory note to this effect. The statutory wording, “unconscionable,” demands a high threshold beyond mere unfairness. In Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 105 (CanLII), at para. 47, the Court of Appeal stated: “To cross the threshold, an equal division of net family properties in the circumstances must ‘shock the conscience of the court.’” The courts have considered countless instances where one party has brought the money into the marriage to buy the matrimonial home and the unfairness of equal division did not meet the threshold. See, e.g., Heal v. Heal, 1998 CanLII 14896 (ON SC), [1998] O.J. No. 4828, 82 O.T.C. 188, 43 R.F.L. (4th) 88|83 A.C.W.S. (3d) 990, at paras. 24-27. That said, the provision can support a reduction of 100% of the difference between the parties’ valuation of net assets: Czieslik v. Ayuso, 2007 ONCA 305 (CanLII), at para. 25. Ordinarily, the Serra decision drives an examination of the result. However, even if the result may not be shocking, the provision can be applicable if other circumstances combine with the result in order to make the equalization award unconscionable: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663 (CanLII), at para. 236.
Close consideration of the economics of the parties’ relationship shows features of the mother’s role in a quasi-traditional marriage. The mother, by looking after the son, did allow the father to earn income as a doctor and therefore contribute to the family finances as described in subsection 5(7). The extreme nature of childcare expenses may mask this factor, but it does not eliminate the mother’s role. I am also unable to rely on the conduct of the mother, including her role as the instigator of conflict and chaos, since it is not related to the acquisition or upkeep of the property. The fact of the short marriage less than five years is not sufficient, of itself, to warrant the reduction of the equalization payment.”