Is a debt that was incurred for use within the family unit relevant when determining the division of assets under s. 65(1) of the Divorce Act?

With respect of the treatment of debts of divorcing parties, the purpose for which they were incurred was clearly relevant. In Stein v. Stein, Bastarache J., speaking for the majority, observed in connection with s. 65(1) that: Many trial courts have recently determined that "family debts", which are incurred for maintenance costs relating to the family, should be considered when determining reapportionment of assets. I agree that, where a debt has been incurred for use within the family unit, it is more likely appropriate to reapportion assets to account for that debt than if it were accumulated solely for use outside of the marriage. The presence of debt (regardless of whether it is "family debt") is only one factor mentioned under s. 65(1); however, and it is, in my view, necessary for a judge to consider all of the relevant factors in order to determine whether or not the presumptive division of assets leads to unfairness. [At para. 16; emphasis added.]