JUDGE DENIES A JOINT OWNER SALE OF A MATRIMONIAL HOME

The recent decision in Caringi v. Caringi et al., 2025 ONSC 6268 offers a powerful reminder that while a joint owner of a matrimonial home may have the right to force its sale under the Partition Act, that right is far from absolute in the family law context.

In a carefully reasoned judgment, Justice Wilkinson denied the husband’s motion to sell the matrimonial home and instead preserved the wife’s competing claims by granting her exclusive possession of the home and a vesting order.

The husband sought an order forcing the sale of the family home in Mississauga against the wishes of the wife.  He argues that it was his prima facie right as a joint owner, that the law was clear that there was no defence to such a request unless he was acting with malice, which he was not.  He submitted that the home held $600,000 of his own equity that he desperately needed to fund the trial retainer and continue paying support, that he should not be forced to collapse his RRSPs and incur tax consequences and, most predominantly, the wife herself had sought an order for sale in her Application.

On its face, this appeared to be a typical run-of-the-mill motion for sale.  Yet the court looked at the circumstances more closely.

The wife opposed the sale on the grounds that her equalization and spousal support claims exceeded the husband’s equity in the home. She presented Justice Wilkinson with her evidence that the equalization payment ranged from $476,000 to $1.6M, that her retroactive spousal support ranged from $600,000 to $780,000 and that there would be ongoing monthly support consistent with a husband earning over $300,000 annually.

Justice Wilkinson held that this type of competing interest was capable of defeating an otherwise automatic right to sale and relied on the following findings:

• Partition and sale is prima facie available to any joint tenant
• That right is subject to the Family Law Act where a sale could prejudice a spouse’s substantive claims
• A resisting spouse must show a prima facie claim that exceeds the benefit of the sale
• The moving spouse must then show that sale would not cause prejudice
• The trial was only three months away.

The judge ruled that the wife met the threshold and the husband did not.

Justice Wilkinson also found several other concerns that could result from a premature sale:

Pleadings do not preclude a party from advancing differing rights as evidence evolves.

1. The matrimonial home was the only asset capable of satisfying the wife’s claims
2. The husband had net RRSPs of only $182,000 (i.e. even his own numbers demonstrated that without the home’s equity he could not satisfy a substantial judgment)
3. A sale would extinguish the wife’s claim to exclusive possession and a vesting order – substantive claims under s. 9(1)(d)(i) of the Family Law Act
4. Proximity to trial is a dominant factor militating against an interim sale
5. The husband did not demonstrate need or financial hardship
6. Pleadings do not preclude a party from advancing differing rights as evidence evolves.

Justice Wilkinson dismissed the husband’s motion for sale, found the wife established a prima facie claim for substantial equalization and spousal support, ordered exclusive possession and a vesting order in her favour and awarded costs of $10,000 to the wife.

For practitioners, the decision Caringi v. Caringi is a strategic reminder that separating spouses cannot assume that their joint ownership interest translates into an automatic right to sell the matrimonial home, especially where the other spouse’s claims exceed their equity.

CASE LINK: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc6268/2025onsc6268.html

This article was recently published in LexisNexis’ LAW360 at:

https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2417211/in-rare-decision-judge-denies-a-joint-owner-the-interim-sale-of-a-matrimonial-home

Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.

Editorial note: This article was first published on LinkedIn in December 2025 and is republished here for reference.