Law360 Canada ( May 11, 2026, 9:42 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Glioza from judgment addressing property division, child support, and spousal support. The judge ordered that the parties be divorced, that equal division of family property required Glioza to pay an equalization amount of $478,642 while retaining the former family home, that Ardalani pay $1,000 per month in child support, and that Glioza was not entitled to spousal support. The underlying facts included the parties’ 21‑year relationship, a jointly acquired first home (Dempsey) later sold for net proceeds of $913,000, the purchase of a mortgage‑free second home (Westview), registered only in Glioza’s and her mother’s names, significant disputes about the unaccounted for balance of $279,000 from the Dempsey sale, and contested evidence regarding document disclosure and renovation expenditures. The judge found both parties’ evidence problematic, rejected an unequal division of property, accepted that $90,000 was spent on Westview renovations and $15,000 on truck debt, and treated $174,000 as unaccounted for family property. He accepted an appraisal valuing Westview at $815,000 and calculated equalization accordingly. He determined incomes for support purposes using business expense add backs, set child support at $1,000, and found no compensatory or non‑compensatory basis for spousal support. On appeal, Glioza challenged the valuation of Westview, alleging reliance on an improperly admitted appraisal; the failure to deduct selling costs associated with an inevitable sale; and the failure to consider several claimed family expenditures from the Dempsey proceeds, including $43,149 in private‑school tuition. She also challenged income determinations and spousal support findings. Ardalani responded that the appraisal was a joint report, selling cost evidence was absent, the school tuition evidence was properly considered, and the remaining grounds merely reflected her disagreement with factual findings subject to deference....