Does a short marriage result in a long-term division of matrimonial property?

Furthermore, in Nasin v. Nasin, 2008 ABQB 219 at para. 103, 291 D.L.R. (4th) 432 A.B. Moen J., determined that a proper division of the matrimonial property required consideration of: 1. the short duration of the marriage, 2. the parties lived completely separate lives during the separation, and 3. the husband made all payments for the house including maintenance, utilities, taxes and insurance. Moen J., concluded at para. 104: Given the short marriage and the complete separation of all financial matters after that short marriage, there is nothing to suggest that the parties should share in the equity of the house up until the day of trial. In the end result, Moen J. divided equally the increase in the matrimonial home during the marriage, however, she concluded at para. 106 that the wife should not share in the “... fortuitous increase in value of the home from the date of separation, having done nothing to increase that value.”

As well, in Wright‑Watts v. Watts, McMahon J. awarded the wife only 25% of the increase in value of the properties owned by the husband before the marriage including rental properties, taking into account the fact that: (a) the marriage was short (three years), and (b) that the husband had a greater income (paras. 74, 77).