Thus, to ensure adherence to the policy choices made by the legislature, and reflected in s. 5(7) and the preamble of the Act, equalization of net family properties is the general rule. As with most rules, however, there are exceptions -- in this case, the high-threshold unconscionability provisions of s. 5(6). This exception is expressly contemplated by the caveat "subject only to the equitable considerations set out in subsection (6)" set out in s. 5(7). Judicial discretion with respect to equalization payments is therefore severely restricted, by statutory design, but it is not eliminated altogether since there is discretion to order an unequal payment where "the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable": see, for example, Skrlj v. Skrlj, supra, at p. 309 R.F.L.
"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.