I agree. Gardner's case is likely different than the OP's case....if only because of the ambiguity of the principal residence part....not because principal residences* are common marital property as stated by Spudd. CRA (and the ITA) don't care what provincial family law says for division of assets upon marriage/relationship breakdown. Note that the ITA has a different definition about when common law relationships kick in vs provincial family law. Also different with respect to when couples are formally separated.
Originally Posted by Eclectic12
* Principal residences can have different status (not common property) if subject to different provisions in a written agreement such as a pre-nup, etc. Too many people make tax mistakes when it comes to joint tenancy (undivided interest) and tenants in common tenancy (divided interest).