In Mazurenko Stevenson, J.A. considered the role of the s. 8 factors in the determination of whether justice and equity require deviation from the presumed equality. He said at p. 120: The statute does not accord any priority or weight to the various factors referred to in s. 8. Counsel for the wife in referring to these heads, paraded the spectre of the courts having to make fine, often arbitrary assessments, in arriving at some percentage discount or bonus. He also suggested that nice assessment of these various components was a guarantee of uncertainty and an assurance of unnecessary litigation. There is merit to these expressions of concern if a court does have to assess and weigh each factor. Such a process is not, in my view, contemplated by the statute. It gives a presumed distribution and allows the court to re-assess on a consideration of the described factors. It would be extremely difficult, indeed impossible, to establish any formula for the application of the heads in s. 8. The legislation avoids formulation. The court must, in my view, look at the relevant facts under s. 8 and then ask itself if it would be unjust or inequitable to divide the property equally. That conclusion would not be lightly reached. There must be some real imbalance in the contribution having regard to what was expected of each or attributable to the other factors in s. 8. Section 8 Factors Acquisition after separation - Wilson v. Wilson
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.