Your figures, run under Manitoba's own rules — the division the statute actually sets out, not a generic 50/50. Rough figures are fine; the answer appears as you type and nothing is sent anywhere.
Once you know the figure, the real work is keeping track of it: every value you entered above will arrive again by letter — revised, argued, and revised again over months.
Upload each one as it arrives — theirs and yours.
Every value, date and claimed exclusion, with the exact sentence it came from.
Their $380,000 house becomes $420,000? You’ll know which letter did it, and when.
The Family Property Act, C.C.S.M. c. F25, read at the province’s own official source. This section is generated from the same verified rules the arithmetic runs on.
| The model | An accounting: each side’s net position is valued, and whoever holds more pays the other half the difference. |
|---|---|
| Who it covers | FPA s.13: spouses and common-law partners have the right to an accounting and equalization — and fPA s.1: cohabited in a conjugal relationship for at least three years. |
| What it’s valued at | the date you last cohabited, unless the two of you agree otherwise (FPA s.16). |
| Something owned before the relationship | It stays outside the division entirely, growth and all — which is why this form asks fewer questions than other provinces’. |
| What a court can change | For family assets the equal accounting stands unless it would be grossly unfair or unconscionable; for commercial assets, unless it would be clearly inequitable. Two different tests, both entirely the judge's call — this number is the starting point the Act itself sets, not a prediction of that discretion. (FPA s.14(1) and s.14(2)) |
Yes — fPA s.1: cohabited in a conjugal relationship for at least three years.
It stays outside the division entirely, growth and all — which is why this form asks fewer questions than other provinces’.
It is the division the statute starts from. For family assets the equal accounting stands unless it would be grossly unfair or unconscionable; for commercial assets, unless it would be clearly inequitable. Two different tests, both entirely the judge's call — this number is the starting point the Act itself sets, not a prediction of that discretion.