Law360 Canada ( May 26, 2026, 9:14 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Janif from an order dismissing her claim for unequal division of family property. Janif owned a townhouse prior to the marriage, which was excluded property, but the increase in its value during the relationship constituted family property. The only issue at trial was whether equal division of that increase would be significantly unfair. Janif asserted the marriage was very short, and that equal division would be significantly unfair given the brief duration, an alleged agreement, and Chander’s limited financial contribution. Chander disputed the separation date, asserting the relationship continued into 2020, and argued equal division was appropriate. Faced with conflicting evidence and an imperfect record, the trial judge declined to determine a precise separation date. Relying on the discretionary wording, she considered the full context of the parties’ relationship, including post-2017 interactions, and concluded that the duration of the relationship did not render equal division significantly unfair. She rejected Janif’s other arguments, found no significant unfairness, and ordered equal division of the increase in value of the townhouse valued at the date of sale. On appeal, Janif argued the trial judge erred in law by misinterpreting duration of the relationship between the spouses as permitting consideration of post‑separation conduct without fixing a separation date. She also argued the trial judge failed to consider the impact of equal division on her adult, allegedly dependent children. Chander submitted no error of law occurred and that the children’s interests were irrelevant....