Karisik has been cited with approval on this point in a number of subsequent decisions including Molendijk v. Molendijk, 2012 BCSC 798. In that case the court again confirmed the division of family assets is based on the net value of the family assets after deducting family debts, which may be accompanied by a reapportionment of the net value of those assets to achieve fairness. At para. 25, Joyce J. held: The exercise of deducting the total amount of the family debt, whether secured against family assets or not, from the total value of the family assets results in a prima facie equal sharing of the indebtedness. However, I do not understand Karisik to stand for the proposition that having deducted the value of the debts from the value of the assets the court is thereafter without jurisdiction to reapportion the net value of the assets in favour of one of the spouses to take into account the fact that that spouse has prima facie shouldered the responsibility for the debts in a way that is unfair having regard to the respective capacities of the spouses.
"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.