The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent spouse to cooperate as guarantor in the renewal of a mortgage on the matrimonial home at a lower interest rate.
The applicant argued the order was authorized under provisions of the Family Law Act relating to preservation and encumbrance of the matrimonial home.
The court declined to determine whether it had jurisdiction to compel a non‑titled spouse to guarantee the mortgage and, in any event, declined to exercise such jurisdiction given that the mortgage could be renewed without the guarantee and the home would likely be sold.
Instead, the court addressed the financial impact by ordering an increase in spousal support equivalent to the difference between the mortgage payments with and without the guarantee, grossed up for tax.
No order was made as to costs due to mixed success.
