What is the case law on division of property where inflation and the increase in the value of the property since the time of trial is due to inflation?

Counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of Stevenson J.A. of this Court in Mazurenko v. Mazurenko for the proposition that the appellant should share equally with the respondent any increase in the value of the business between the time of separation and the time of trial where that increase was due “largely or solely” to inflation and the increase in land value. In Mazurenko the learned justice of appeal did “conclude that the general principle that valuation be made at trial should apply” (page 363), but he also recognized that there may be circumstances that would lead the trial judge in exercising his discretion to depart from the usual equal division of property. At page 364 he said: “The court must, in my view, look at the relevant facts under s.8 and then ask itself if it would be unjust or inequitable to divide the property equally. That conclusion would not be lightly reached. There must be some real imbalance in the contribution having regard to what was expected of each or attributable to the other factors in s.8. In establishing the presumption I take the legislature to have decided that in ordinary cases equality is the rule.”