Background

This case arises from the breakdown of a long-term marriage involving extensive international living arrangements and complex financial dealings. The parties married in 2002 under Iranian law and executed a written mahr as part of their marriage contract. They lived for many years in Dubai before immigrating to Canada. The parties separated in 2019 after approximately 17 years of marriage.

Litigation commenced in 2020 and quickly became protracted and contentious, involving numerous motions, interim orders, and disputes over disclosure, child support, property ownership, and equalization. A separation agreement entered into in 2021 was initially enforced but later set aside due to non-disclosure, significantly escalating the conflict. By trial, parenting and spousal support issues were largely resolved, leaving the court to determine the core financial issues, including income, child support, property division, and credibility.

The Law

Ontario family law is grounded in the principles of full and frank financial disclosure, credibility, and fairness. Where income is disputed or disclosure is unreliable, courts may impute income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines to reflect a party’s true earning capacity. In determining the date of separation, courts assess when there was a settled intention to end the marriage with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, based on conduct and contemporaneous evidence rather than hindsight.

For property division, the equalization regime under the Family Law Act requires inclusion of all assets owned on the valuation date unless a valid exclusion applies. Claims that assets are held in trust or belong to third parties must be supported by clear and credible evidence. Informal family arrangements or unsupported assertions are insufficient, particularly where non-disclosure is established.

Analysis

Income and Child Support

The husband reported annual income in the range of $20,000–$30,000. The court rejected this figure as unreliable. Bank records revealed substantial unexplained cash deposits and significant credit card spending over multiple years, wholly inconsistent with the income claimed. The husband, who was self-employed and controlled his financial reporting, failed to provide adequate business records or credible explanations for these discrepancies.

The court emphasized that income imputation is remedial, not punitive. Where disclosure is incomplete and reported income does not reflect financial reality, the court is entitled to reconstruct income using indirect evidence. Based on banking activity, lifestyle evidence, and earning capacity, the court imputed income at a significantly higher level and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, including support for the adult child while enrolled in post-secondary education.

Date of Separation

Both parties have advanced separation dates aligned with their financial interests. The court rejected both extremes and conducted a contextual analysis of conduct, finances, and contemporaneous sworn evidence. While marital conflict arose earlier in 2019, the court found that reconciliation remained reasonably possible until September 1, 2019, which was fixed as the valuation date. The decision confirms that separation is determined by objective reality, not strategic positioning.

Property and Equalization

The court undertook an asset-by-asset analysis of domestic and foreign properties. The husband asserted that several properties in Canada, Iran, and Dubai were owned by relatives or held in trust. The court rejected these claims where there was no written trust documentation, no certainty of intention, and no corroborating evidence regarding funding or control. In several instances, the husband exercised full dominion over the assets, collected income, and managed expenses conduct incompatible with mere nominal ownership.

The court was particularly critical of repeated non-disclosure of foreign assets and rejected attempts to blame former counsel. Disclosure obligations rest with the litigant. Where evidence was missing or unreliable, the court drew adverse inferences and included the assets in net family property, recalculating equalization accordingly.

Credibility and Disclosure

Credibility was central to the court’s findings. The husband’s disclosure was incomplete, inconsistent, and reactive, with explanations shifting over time. The court explicitly stated it could not rely on his evidence where it conflicted with objective records. These credibility findings directly influenced income imputation, rejection of trust claims, and property inclusion. The court reaffirmed that uncertainty created by non-disclosure will be resolved against the non-disclosing party.

Conclusion

This case is a cautionary decision underscoring the critical role of credibility and full financial disclosure in family law, particularly where self-employment and international assets are involved. Courts will not tolerate strategic non-disclosure, informal asset-shielding arrangements, or attempts to minimize financial obligations through unreliable reporting. Where evidence is lacking or inconsistent, courts will draw adverse inferences, impute income, and include disputed assets to ensure that support and equalization reflect financial reality and uphold the integrity of the family law system.