As explained in Khan, cases in which unequal contribution has led to reapportionment under s. 95 “involved marked, prolonged, and intentional or unexplained disparities in contribution to family burdens” (para.32). In contrast, factors such as one spouse providing two-thirds of the down payment for the family residence and performing most of the renovations to it were not sufficient to render an equal division significantly unfair: Hamill v. Dunlop, 2016 BCSC 1337.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.