I agree with the DJ’s approach in ordering the CPF refunds to be made from the gross sales proceeds, before apportioning the sales proceeds between the parties. With respect, the reasoning in Tay Sin Tor is flawed. The court in Tay Sin Tor correctly held that CPF sums are “not loans” but “assets of the parties”, but it then contradicted itself by likening CPF sums to personal loans, which are not required to be repaid before division. I respectfully disagree with Tay Sin Tor that the liability to repay CPF sums used for the continuing payment of a matrimonial home is a “personal obligation”. That description has no helpful meaning in determining whether CPF contributions ought to be paid before or after distribution of the gross proceeds of sale. When CPF monies have been used to buy the matrimonial home, they are used for the benefit of the family and are obligations undertaken for the joint benefit of the marriage. They are part of the matrimonial assets and should not be treated as a class separate from other deductions.

It seems to me that Tay Sin Tor is the only case attempting to explain why CPF proceeds should be paid after the proceeds of sale of the property have been divided, meaning, each party repays his or her CPF money from his or her own share of the proceeds. The courts have not been consistent in determining when CPF refunds are to be refunded before and when after the division of the sale proceeds. I have also on some occasions allowed CPF refunds to be paid from the parties’ share of the sale proceeds, without elaboration, probably because parties had not questioned the reasoning in Tay Sin Tor. I am now of the view that it is not desirable to have an arbitrary choice between dividing the proceeds of sale before or after repayment of CPF monies. To have that choice immediately raises the question, “Under what circumstances should a court order repayment of CPF monies before division of the sales proceeds, and when to pay after division?” No rational reason can be found to differentiate the two options. For the reasons above, I am of the view that repayment of CPF monies should always be paid before division of sale proceeds.

In so far as WBI stands for the proposition that the “repayment of CPF monies should always be paid before [the] division of sale proceeds” (at [10]), we are of the view, with respect, that this is incorrect. Repayment of CPF moneys may be made (1) before dividing the sale proceeds, or (2) after dividing the proceeds and payments are made from each party’s share of the proceeds. In the latter situation, if the divided proceeds are insufficient for the repayment amounts, that party may have to use other assets or moneys to make up the difference. It would not be useful, nor principled, to limit the discretion of the court to either approach. Ultimately, whichever approach is taken, the result in substance should be that the total value of the share received by each party must reflect the final division ratios ordered.