Korie v. Korie: Pension Rollovers, Equalization Fairness & the Limits of Unjust Enrichment

Overview

In Korie v. Korie, 2025 ONSC 2530, Justice Law delivered a clear, fact-driven decision that demonstrates how credibility, liquidity, and statutory discipline shape equitable outcomes in long-term marriage cases.

After a five-day trial, the Court:

• ordered that the husband’s equalization payment be made by pension rollover to a LIRA (para. 47);
• dismissed the wife’s unjust enrichment and retroactive support claims (paras. 50, 65);
• denied a restraining order (para. 73); and
• awarded costs of $4,000 against the Applicant (para. 80).

At the heart of every dismissal lay one common theme — credibility.

Background

The parties were married in 2002 and separated in 2022 after a 20-year marriage with two children (para. 2).

The wife, a self-employed lash artist, and the husband, a long-time Halton Region employee, jointly owned the matrimonial home and a Mohawk Road investment property where she operated her business (para. 5).

Partial minutes of settlement resolved most issues:

• Joint decision-making and equal residence for their 17-year-old son (para. 6(a));
• Imputed incomes: $30,000 and $93,000 (para. 6(b));
• Net set-off child support of $600 and 65 % of s. 7 expenses (para. 6(c));
• Spousal support of $1,200 monthly — the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and approximately 50 % of the parties’ combined net disposable income (para. 6(d)); and
• an equalization payment of $201,604.21 owing to the wife (para. 6(g)).

What remained for trial were the

(a) method of equalization payment,

(b) retroactive and commencement dates of support,

(c) a restitution/unjust-enrichment claim, and

(d) a restraining order (para. 7).

Credibility: The Cornerstone of the Decision

Justice Law conducted a detailed credibility assessment (paras. 30–37), drawing from Jayawickrema v. Jayawickrema, 2020 ONSC 2492 and Alsawwah v. Afifi, 2020 ONSC 2883.

She found that the Applicant’s deep animosity toward the Respondent distorted her evidence (para. 33) and led to “an unreliable and at times embellished re-telling of the facts” (para. 34).

Examples included:

• her insistence that the Respondent brought a $120,000 debt into the marriage without any documentation or memory of specifics (para. 34); and
• her claim that she would have “zero income” post-sale of the matrimonial home and additional property was inconsistent with her business acumen and prior initiative (para. 35).

Justice Law concluded that these embellishments eroded reliability, whereas the Respondent was forthright, made concessions against his interest, and appeared objective (para. 36).

Where evidence conflicted, the Respondent’s was preferred (para. 37).

That credibility determination underpinned every substantive finding that followed.

Equalization by Pension Rollover (Paras. 38–47)

The parties agreed on entitlement and quantum but disagreed on how to pay.

The wife wanted a cash payment from sale proceeds; the husband sought a pension transfer.

Justice Law, applying ss. 9 and 10.1 of the Family Law Act, analyzed the five factors in s. 10.1(4) —

1. the nature of the assets available,
2. the proportion of NFP comprised of the imputed value of a pension,
3. liquidity of the sum to be transferred,
4. contingent tax liabilities, and
5. resources available for retirement (para. 41).

Her Honor declined to order payment by instalments under s. 9(1)(c), observing that prolonging financial entanglement would “only exacerbate this conflict” (para. 40).

Based on the limited evidence before her — the parties provided no detailed cash-flow or tax calculations (para. 44) — the Court found that a cash equalization would be unfair:

“If the equalization payment is paid in cash, the Respondent would exit the marriage with less than 25 % of the parties’ liquid assets. The Applicant would have greater than 75 %.” (para. 46(f))

This was not a fixed ratio but a fairness comparison grounded in the evidence of:

• $400,000 net proceeds from each property (para. 46(b));
• liquid assets of $8,281.91 and $21,960.41 (para. 46(c)); and
• the Respondent’s pension valued at $496,799.59 (para. 46(d)).

A pension rollover preserved parity and retirement security for both spouses (para. 47). Justice Law ordered that the equalization payment be satisfied by a rollover from the husband’s pension to a locked-in retirement account for the wife. The parties were directed to determine the gross-up for contingent tax liability or return with expert evidence if they could not agree.

Unjust Enrichment (Paras. 48–57)

The wife’s claim for $60,000 (half the alleged premarital debt) and $20,720.05 (half the renovation costs) was advanced as quantum meruit.

Citing Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 and Ryan v. Ryan, 2017 ONSC 1377 (at para. 112), Justice Law reiterated the three-part test — enrichment, a direct nexus of corresponding deprivation, and absence of juristic reason (para. 49).

She found none were proven.

The debt was unsubstantiated (para. 50); the renovation expenses were offset by the Respondent’s unpaid labour (para. 52); and there was no absence of juristic reason because both parties jointly owned and benefited from the property (para. 53).

Even had enrichment been shown, the Family Law Act’s equalization regime already captures such claims (para. 54).

Quoting Straub v. Straub, 2012 ONSC 3819 (at para. 109), Justice Law affirmed that only “rare cases” justify resort to constructive-trust or quantum-meruit remedies. These were not the circumstances in the present case(para. 57).

Retroactive Support (Paras. 58–66)

The wife sought $65,853 in retroactive child and spousal support dating back to separation (para. 62).

Applying D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37 and Kerr v. Baranow, Justice Law concluded that the Respondent had already borne most household and child expenses (para. 64).

Her claim of “dire financial circumstances” was undermined by evidence she travelled to British Columbia, New York, Turkey, Montreal, Niagara Falls, Israel, and Tobermory during the same period (para. 64).

There was no proof of deprivation, and the Court accepted the husband’s evidence as more credible.

Accordingly, no retroactive support was ordered (para. 65).

Ongoing support would begin the month following the sale of the matrimonial home (para. 66).

Restraining Order (Paras. 67–73)

The application under s. 46 FLA failed. Justice Law summarized the governing principles (para. 69): restraining orders are serious, carry potential criminal consequences, and require both subjective fear and objectively reasonable grounds (para. 69(e)).

Justice Law found no such grounds. The parties had co-habited peacefully for three years post-separation, and the Respondent respected all boundaries set by others (paras. 70–72).

“This is not a compelling case for a restraining order and I am concerned about the potential criminal consequences that may arise with a breach of such an order.” (para. 71)

Costs (Paras. 74–80)

Justice Law reviewed modern costs principles under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules (para. 74).

Although the Respondent was successful on all disputed trial issues, overall success was divided because the Applicant’s pre-trial offer largely reflected the eventual partial settlement (para. 78).

However, the Applicant’s unfounded allegations of sexual misconduct in support of her restraining-order claim were “inflammatory” and wasted court time (para. 79).

Accordingly, she was ordered to pay the Respondent $4,000 (all-inclusive) (para. 80).

Practice Takeaways

Credibility remains decisive. The Applicant’s embellishments — particularly her unsupported debt allegation — undermined reliability and tainted every claim. Justice Law’s preference for the Respondent’s evidence (paras. 34–37) dictated the outcome.

Equalization fairness is fluid. Section 10.1(4) allows the court to balance liquidity, tax, and retirement resources. A pension rollover can equitably satisfy equalization where cash payment would distort liquidity.

Unjust enrichment seldom survives equalization. Unless unconscionability under s. 5(6) FLA is proven, equitable doctrines add only confusion and cost.

Retroactive support demands proof of deprivation. Where one spouse continues paying household expenses, retroactivity is unlikely.

Restraining orders require both objective and subjective fear. Courts will not “play it safe” by granting them in borderline cases.

And above all, credibility and restraint carry more weight than rhetoric. As Alsawwah v. Afifi reminds us, “exaggeration is the enemy of credibility.”

Why It Matters

Korie v. Korie underscores three enduring principles of Ontario family law:

1. Fairness, not formality, governs equalization.
2. The FLA displaces most equitable work-arounds.
3. Credibility is the decisive currency of litigation.

For practitioners, it’s a reminder that precision in evidence — and moderation in tone — remain the surest paths to persuasion.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.