Law360 Canada ( March 30, 2026, 9:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from an order made dividing family property equally between himself and the respondent. The only issue on appeal concerned the judge’s conclusion that it would not be significantly unfair under s. 95 of the Family Law Act (FLA) to divide equally the increase in value, during the parties’ nearly five-year relationship, of two real properties that the appellant owned prior to the relationship. It was conceded that the value of those properties at the start of the relationship was excluded property, and only the increase in their value was family property. The appellant argued the judge erred in principle by failing to give adequate weight to the nature of the family property, which consisted almost entirely of increases generated by his excluded assets, and by failing to consider the cumulative effect of the s. 95(2) of the FLA factors, which included the relatively short relationship, the magnitude of the excluded property claim, the substantial market driven increases in value, and what he said were unequal contributions to family property. He sought an 80/20 reapportionment in his favour. The respondent argued that the judge correctly stated and applied the legal principles, properly assessed the evidence, and found that while the appellant entered the relationship with significant assets, the respondent contributed indirectly through homemaking and childcare, and the factors cited did not approach the high threshold of significant unfairness....