Michael A. Chambers

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the respondent brought a cross-motion for interim exclusive possession.

The parties had been separated for several years, and the respondent had resided in the home since 2014.

The court found that the respondent did not meet the test for exclusive possession under section 24(3) of the Family Law Act, as there were no dependent children and no evidence of alternate accommodation unavailability.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the home, noting that a claim for permanent exclusive possession was unrealistic and there was no valid reason to delay the sale.

Following the breakdown of a long marriage that began when the respondent was a teenager and the applicant was significantly older, the court addressed equalization of net family property, sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The respondent sought an unequal division of property, a constructive trust over a home purchased prior to marriage, exclusive possession of the home, and retroactive child and spousal support.

The court rejected the constructive trust claim and found no basis for an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act because the circumstances did not reach the high threshold of unconscionability.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, equalization was calculated, and post‑separation financial adjustments were made.

Retroactive and ongoing compensatory spousal support was awarded, but the claim for retroactive adult‑child support was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.