Equalization Limitation Periods: A Case Study of Poirier v. Alie, 2007 

What are Equalization Limitation Periods and Why are they Important?

Equalization payments are the spouse’s right to claim half of the family property upon divorce. But did you know that you can lose this right? Under section 7 of Ontario’s Family Law Act, spouses must file for an equalization payment before a certain deadline. The deadline varies, but it can be the earliest of the following:

• 2 years after the day the marriage is terminated by divorce or a judgment of nullity
• 6 years after the day the spouses separate, and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation
• 6 months after the first spouse’s death

What Happens if The Limitation Period Passes?

If the limitation period has passed, the court will not accept any equalization application unless special permission is granted. To get this special permission, spouses must file a motion for extension of time. Section 2(8) of the Family Law Act states that the court will accept the motion for extension of time if 3 criteria are met:

1. There are apparent grounds for relief. Meaning that there are obvious and reasonable reasons why the spouse would want an extension.
2. Relief is unavailable because of a delay that has been incurred in good faith. This means that the spouse cannot make a claim because the deadline has passed. Furthermore, the court requires that the delay be in good faith, meaning that the person claiming relief acted honestly and without ulterior motive.
3. No person will suffer substantial prejudice by reason of the delay. This means that no one will be unfairly impacted by the decision to extend the deadline.

The Case of Poirier v. Alie

The Case of Poirier v. Alie concerns a motion for extension of time and can help better understand why limitation periods are important.

Facts: Here, the couple separated in 1995. Rather than resorting to the court to resolve their issues, the parties attempted to negotiate a solution through mediation. Two attempts were made to reach an agreement, but neither succeeded. While the spouses were still negotiating, the matrimonial home was sold. The husband, following his lawyer’s advice, signed a direction permitting all disbursements to be made to the wife and requiring the money to be placed in a joint account. The wife did not do so, but repeatedly assured the husband she was keeping his share safe. However, in 2006, she refused to give him his share, claiming he had no right to the money. As many years had passed since the couple separated, the equalization deadline had passed. 

Therefore, he had to file a Motion for Extension of Time and prove he met the 3 criteria outlined in section 2(8).

Grounds for Relief: Section 2(8) of the Family Law Act requires that there be apparent grounds for relief before granting the motion. In this case, the ground is clear. The husband needs relief from the court to claim his share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Good Faith: The court requires that the delay have been caused in good faith. In other words, it must be shown that the applicant acted honestly and without ulterior motive. If one was unaware of their rights, they must show that they had no reason to inquire into those rights for good faith to be found.

In this case, the court finds that the husband acted honestly, without ulterior motive, and had no reason to make an inquiry into his rights. Neither of the two mediators raised the issue of any limitation period, nor did his lawyer. Furthermore, even after the limitation period had passed, the wife repeatedly told him that he had the right to at least half of the proceeds from the sale. Therefore, the husband had no reason to make an inquiry.

Prejudice: The court will not grant a motion for Extension of Time if one party is unfairly affected by that. The court states that prejudice can occur if the respondent organized their financial affairs, assuming there would be no payment to the ex-spouse because the limitation period had passed. However, in this case, there is no prejudice. The wife knew and acknowledged on multiple occasions that the husband was owed at least half. Therefore, she cannot claim prejudice.

Why This Matters to You?

Limitation periods in family law are strict, and missing a deadline can mean losing the right to your equalization entirely. As Poirier v. Alie illustrates, even when the spouse acts honestly and in good faith, seeking an extension is complex, uncertain, and costly.

The Toronto family lawyers at Soica & Associates have extensive experience navigating equalization claims, limitation periods, and all aspects of divorce and separation in Ontario. We serve clients across Toronto, Mississauga, North York, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Etobicoke, Richmond Hill, Barrie, Newmarket, and Oshawa. Whether you are concerned about a missed deadline or want to know your rights from the outset, we can help you understand your options and take the right steps together.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area is developing rapidly. Please consult a qualified family law lawyer at Soica & Associates for guidance specific to your situation.