ONCA 59, at paras. 48 and 53. Here, at the time they executed
the maher in Iran, the parties evidently contemplated their continued life in Iran. The maher, for example, contemplated that
the husband could take a second wife. It also required the
husband to grant the wife a power of attorney so she could initiate a divorce if he defaulted on any of the prescribed behavioural
requirements. There is no basis in this case to infer that the parties contemplated their mutual obligations under Ontario’s FLA.
 Absent any evidence of an objective intention at the time
of contract to treat the maher differently, the maher payment
must be treated under the FLA like any other payment obligation between the spouses.
 Counsel for the wife submitted that all transactions
between spouses, irrespective of any domestic contract, should
be excluded from NFP. Counsel submitted it is pointless to
include transactions between spouses because they have no net
effect on equalization. I reject this submission for three reasons.
First, there is simply no provision in the FLA that excludes
transactions between spouses. On the contrary, bona fide inter-
spousal debts must be included in NFP: Burke (Public Trustee of)
v. Burke Estate,  O.J. No. 1342, 1994 CanLII 7442 (Gen.
Div.), at paras. 37-40 (CanLII), at paras. 38-41; and Long v.
Long,  O.J. No. 386, 1989 CarswellOnt 2687 (S.C.), at
paras. 15-17. Second, because of the effect of the deeming provi-
sion in s. 4(5), transactions between spouses may affect the
equalization payment where a spouse’s net assets would other-
wise be negative. Transferred assets that fluctuate in value
could also make a difference. Third, excluding transactions
between spouses would be inconsistent with the separate prop-
erty regime under the FLA, which continues during a marriage
and terminates only on the triggering of the valuation date. As
Feldman J.A. said in Stone v. Stone (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 491,
 O.J. No. 3282 (C.A.), at para. 26:
The nature of the property regime established as between spouses under
the Family Law Act was clearly described by Cory J. in Rawluk v. Rawluk
. . . Spouses each own their separate property throughout the marriage.
However, upon the happening of one of the five triggering events, there
is a valuation date.
(Underlining added; citations omitted)
 The wife’s submission that the maher payment should be
considered akin to a dowry also does not assist her. A dowry from
the husband would be included as part of NFP since only gifts