The applicants sought an order for vacant possession of a property from the respondents.
The property was originally owned by the respondent Mario Lograsso and his then-spouse (applicants' daughter), but was sold to the applicant Maria Azevedo in 2005 to avoid foreclosure.
The applicants allowed the respondents to live there rent-free.
After Mario and Nancy separated, the applicants sought to regain possession.
The respondents argued the property was a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act (FLA) and that they were tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The court found that neither Mario nor Nancy had a proprietary interest in the property since 2005, thus precluding a matrimonial home claim against the applicants.
Furthermore, the RTA did not apply due to the shared facilities exemption (s. 5(i)), as the respondents initially shared facilities with the owners' daughter.
The court granted the application for vacant possession and awarded costs to the applicants.
