Timothy Groulx

The parties separated after a short marriage and proceeded to trial to determine the valuation of their net family property.

The court resolved several disputes regarding the valuation of real estate, including a lakefront property and vacant land, heavily weighing expert appraisal evidence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the real estate market.

The court also determined that a property owned by the applicant qualified as a matrimonial home, classified various financial transfers as gifts rather than loans, and held that the respondent's contingent survivor pension benefit must be included in his net family property calculation.

The respondent was granted leave to obtain an uncontested divorce order prior to the final equalization calculation.

This decision addresses cross-motions between common-law spouses concerning various family law issues.

The applicant sought temporary exclusive possession of the family home, valuation of the respondent's "book of business" and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent sought joint parental decision-making, retroactive and ongoing child support, occupation rent, and the immediate sale of the family home.

The court determined the separation date as July 8, 2016.

It dismissed the applicant's requests for exclusive possession (as the home was not a matrimonial home) and the valuation of the business book (finding no joint family venture).

The court granted the applicant non-compensatory spousal support, calculated based on the respondent's income at the time of separation, not her significantly increased post-separation income.

It also granted the respondent retroactive and ongoing child support and ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the jointly owned home, subject to the applicant's right to purchase the respondent's interest.

The applicant brought a motion under the Partition Act seeking an interlocutory order for the sale of the matrimonial home prior to trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting a claim for exclusive possession under the Family Law Act and arguing that a sale would prejudice her substantive property rights and disrupt the children's living arrangements.

The court considered the interaction between the Partition Act and the Family Law Act, noting that a sale should not proceed where it would prejudice a spouse’s rights under the family law regime.

Finding that the respondent had at least an arguable case for exclusive possession and that the children’s best interests and housing stability were significant considerations, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue for trial.

The court therefore declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home before trial.