Ontario doesn't divide the property itself. It equalises the growth in each spouse's net worth across the marriage, and the spouse who ends up better off writes the other a cheque for half the difference.
“Coming out of a difficult year, I needed someone patient enough to explain the same thing twice, and that's what I got.”F.A. · Separation agreement · Guelph
Shared with permission. Initials changed to protect client privacy.
Enter what each spouse owns and owes today, and what each brought into the marriage. The estimate updates instantly — no email required.
This estimates the arithmetic only. Whether an asset counts, whether it's really excluded, and whether the result is unconscionable under section 5(6) are legal questions — see flat-fee separation agreements →.
The short version — the calculator above does the actual math for you.
For each spouse, start with everything owned on the valuation date — normally the date of separation, or the day before death if a spouse dies — minus debts on that date. From that, subtract the net value of what the spouse brought into the marriage (assets minus debts on the marriage date), and subtract any excluded property, such as a gift or inheritance received during the marriage from someone other than the other spouse and kept separate.
What's left is that spouse's net family property. The spouse with the higher figure pays the other half the difference — under section 5(1) of the Family Law Act, that's an entitlement on divorce, nullity, or separation with no reasonable prospect of reconciling, not something either spouse has to ask a court to order.
One asymmetry runs through the whole calculation: if a spouse's net family property comes out negative, it's deemed to be zero. A spouse's debts never reduce what they owe the other spouse below nothing.
One rule reverses more outcomes than any other in Part I of the Act.
You do not deduct the value of the matrimonial home on the date of marriage — even if one spouse owned it outright before the wedding, and even if it was paid for entirely with money that would otherwise be excluded property. Section 4(2) of the Family Law Act says so directly: the marriage-date deduction and the excluded-property exclusion both name "property, other than a matrimonial home" — the home is carved out of both.
Bring a mortgage-free house into a marriage, separate fifteen years later, and its full current value sits in your net family property, while your spouse still deducts everything they brought in. This single rule decides more equalization outcomes than any other, and it's the main reason a marriage contract signed before the wedding is worth having — a domestic contract can exclude the home by agreement, which is otherwise the only way around it.
Spouse A owned a house mortgage-free before the marriage, now worth $850,000, and has $60,000 of other debt on the valuation date. Because it's the matrimonial home, none of its value is deducted for having owned it before the marriage. Spouse B brought $40,000 of savings into the marriage against a $5,000 car loan, and today has $180,000 of assets and $20,000 of debt:
Run your own numbers — any figures, either spouse ahead — in the calculator above; it uses the exact same formula.
Each spouse works out their net family property: assets minus debts on the valuation date, less the net value they brought into the marriage, less excluded property. The spouse with the higher net family property pays the other one half of the difference.
Yes, and it is the most consequential rule in Part I of the Family Law Act. Its value on the date of marriage is not deducted, even where one spouse owned it outright before the marriage, and it can never be excluded property even if bought with excluded funds. The full current value sits in that spouse's net family property.
It is treated as zero. Debts do not transfer to the other spouse through equalization, and a spouse's own debts never turn what they owe below nothing.
No. The equalization regime in Part I of the Family Law Act applies to married spouses only. Common-law partners have to rely on trust claims and unjust enrichment, which are harder to run and much less predictable.
Only in narrow circumstances under section 5(6) — for example one spouse failing to disclose debts, recklessly depleting their property, or a marriage that lasted less than five years. Outside those grounds, equalization is a straight half of the difference.
Book a 20-minute call with a family lawyer — $150, HST included, credited in full toward your file if you retain us (once payment is received), paid by Interac e-transfer.
You’ll pay $150 by Interac e-transfer on the next screen to confirm your time.