Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-25-33 Date: 2025-09-25 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Erin Rebecca Dietrich, Applicant And: Joshua Sprague, Respondent

Before: Justice M. Fraser

Counsel:

• Stella Hines, Counsel for the Applicant
• Michael Rappaport, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: September 9, 2025

Endorsement

JUSTICE M. FRASER

Introduction

[1] The Applicant Erin Rebecca Dietrich ("Dietrich") and the Respondent Joshua Sprague ("Sprague") were involved in a 13-year common law relationship.

[2] There is one child of the relationship, a daughter, namely S.S., who is presently 13 years old.

[3] Dietrich also has a son from a previous relationship, O.D., who was born in 2006. Dietrich maintains that Sprague stood in loco parentis to O.D. It is not in issue that O.D. currently lives independently.

[4] At the conclusion of the relationship, the parties were residing at 441A Cormac Road, Cormac, Ontario (the "Cormac property"). Title to the Cormac property is held in the name of Sprague alone.

[5] The parties disagree on when the parties began to live separate and apart. Both agree, however, that both parties continued to reside in the home on the Cormac property until the end of 2024.

[6] Dietrich asserts that the parties separated on February 1, 2024. She maintains that, at that time, the parties continued to reside separate and apart at the Cormac property through to the end of 2024.

[7] Sprague asserts that the parties separated in May 2018 when Dietrich is alleged to have reported him to the police for growing and selling cannabis without a license, leading to his incarceration at a federal penitentiary for the years 2021 and 2022. He does not dispute that Dietrich remained resident at the Cormac property, including during the period following his release from prison, until the end of 2024. He maintains this was necessary for "financial reasons".

Motions

[8] There are two motions before me.

[9] Dietrich brings a motion requesting, among other things, the following:

1. An order granting a Certificate of Pending Litigation to be registered against the Cormac property, more particularly described as Lot 28, Concession 2, South Algona, except Part 1, 49R-1330, South Algona in the Township of Bonnechere Valley, being PIN 57463-0009;

2. An order restraining Sprague from depleting, encumbering, dissipating, dispersing or otherwise dealing with his assets including any net proceeds of sale of the Cormac property or any property insurance payout respecting this property to secure Dietrich's claims in this proceeding;

3. An order requiring Sprague to provide disclosure and particulars respecting his insurance coverage, and/or denial of insurance coverage, for the Cormac property, and details of the claims and inquiries and the answers to inquiries, made to the insurer who holds the property insurance policy for the Cormac property (arising from the property damage in 2025); and an order directing that the Order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation be served on the insurance company (to the correct contact);

4. An order requiring Sprague to provide disclosure and the particulars respecting any household contents insurance policy coverage on the Cormac property that has been in place in 2023, 2024 or 2025;

5. An order requiring Sprague to provide a fulsome financial statement and to meet all financial disclosure requirements pursuant to the Family Law Rules;

6. An order setting aside the exclusive possession portion of the order of Justice J. Hooper dated May 2, 2025; and

7. An order for child support payable by Sprague to Dietrich for the support of their child S.S.

[10] Sprague brings a motion requesting, among other things, the following:

1. An order dismissing Dietrich's motion to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation against the Cormac property as well as her claim for a lien over any insurance settlement funds received by Sprague as a result of the fire on the Cormac property;

2. An order that Sprague pay child support for the parties' daughter S.S. commencing 30 days after he finds employment and that Sprague notify Dietrich as soon as he finds employment; and

3. An order setting aside the order for exclusive possession of the Cormac property and the restraining order, both made by Justice J. Hooper on May 2, 2025.

Dietrich's History of the Relationship

[11] Dietrich maintains that the parties first began to cohabit at her parents' home, rent free. They lived at her parents' home for about 3 years.

[12] Following the birth of their daughter S.S. in 2012, she recounts that Sprague purchased his family's farm in Floradale, Ontario (the "Floradale farm") for $225,000. He purchased this property with his mother. She asserts that there were two mortgages on the property, one with a private lender for $125,000 and the other with Sprague's father for $100,000. Dietrich additionally maintains that her father also provided $20,000 which the parties used to renovate the farmhouse and to pay down the mortgage.

[13] During the next nine years, Dietrich asserts that she did not work outside the home due to the caregiving role she assumed with both of her children. She states that her eldest child was seriously ill until 2021 and required a full-time caregiver.

[14] Dietrich asserts that the parties mingled their finances and that the mortgage payments for the Floradale farm was drawn from her bank account every month and that the payment of this mortgage consumed all of her income/benefit moneys that she received. At the time she was receiving the child tax benefit (she does not state whether this benefit was received for S.S. or O.D. but presumably she would have been eligible to receive the child tax benefit for both children). Dietrich also was receiving a benefit under a program for children with severe disabilities (presumably because of O.D.'s needs). She maintains these moneys were the means by which the mortgage on the Floradale farm was paid.

[15] Dietrich asserts that she worked regularly on home projects and on the farm. She built and labored on a market garden. The produce was then sold to local restaurants.

[16] Dietrich states that Sprague worked off and on throughout the relationship: that he generally worked out of town and in locations requiring a vehicle for transportation. Sprague works in construction.

[17] According to Dietrich, Sprague was also self-employed for a time when he started his own concrete business. She asserts that she cared for the children and the Floradale farm while Sprague pursued this business venture. When the business did not succeed, she recalls that Sprague took a job that was out of town again.

[18] Dietrich asserts that she often had to drive long distances to take Sprague to and from his place of employment as at points in time he did not have a vehicle or a license during the relationship.

[19] Dietrich also asserts that Sprague, at times, was not available to assist with the family support or the care of the children given that he spent almost 37 months incarcerated during their 13-year relationship. This occurred at various intervals during the relationship. She asserts that Sprague has a criminal record which has not been properly disclosed in his Form 35.1 affidavit.

[20] Dietrich maintains that she was responsible for the care of the livestock on the farm, including the laying hens, chickens, turkeys, ducks, pheasants, sheep and pigs. She gathered and split firewood to heat the house as a wood stove was their only source of heat. Dietrich states that she managed the garden and labored on the 32-tree orchard, lawn care and snow removal.

[21] Dietrich also asserts that over the ensuing four years she helped with the renovation of the Floradale farm, including remodeling the upstairs, construction of a new deck, installation of a hot tub, restoration of the barn, installation of fencing, rehabilitation of the orchard, construction of the chicken coop, landscaping of the yard, restoration of flower beds and construction of a greenhouse.

[22] Dietrich states that in 2016 Sprague was incarcerated, and the parties decided to sell the Floradale farm and move. According to her, this was a joint decision. In order to ensure the home showed well, it is Dietrich's evidence that she completed the renovation of the basement, tearing down the ceiling tiles and removing the wood panel walls, framing new walls and drywalling the ceiling and new walls.

[23] Dietrich maintains that the Floradale farm sold privately for $700,000. Dietrich asserts that she made all the arrangements and did all of the work related to preparing the property for sale. All mortgages on the Floradale farm were paid in full from the sale proceeds.

[24] Dietrich states that she conducted a search for a new home for the parties and found the Cormac property. They both agreed to make an offer and an offer of $489,000 was accepted in February 2017. Dietrich asserts that title was put in the name of Sprague and his mother jointly.

[25] According to Dietrich, Sprague and Dietrich then made improvements to the Cormac property. This, according to Dietrich, was a joint project and she maintains that she contributed numerous hours of labour, time and expertise and she planned and decided on purchases.

[26] Dietrich maintains that she sanded, treated and stained the interior and exterior logs of the entire house, including the chinking and painting the chinking inside and out. She asserts that she assisted with the building of a greenhouse, renovated the basement, added two bedrooms, built a new wrap around deck and a new balcony off the master bedroom, assisted putting in a hot tub, building a chicken coop, clearing and cleaning up two plus acres of land to expand the lawn, put in a vegetable garden, rock garden and numerous other perennial gardens, new roof, kitchen cabinets, painting all the interior drywall, installed a gate at the end of the driveway, pulled up carpet in the loft and refinished the hardwood floor underneath. Dietrich maintains that her father purchased a new furnace for the Cormac property for them.

[27] In July 2020 Sprague's mother passed away. Dietrich asserts that title to the Cormac property was then transferred to Sprague, as the sole owner.

[28] According to Dietrich, the Cormac property increased in value because of their joint labour to the improvements. She believes that the current market value of the Cormac property approximated $1,200,000 at the date of separation.

[29] Dietrich began her own e-commerce business in 2023. She maintains that she created an inventory of used clothing and thrifted items which she then sold online and that she was beginning to earn a profit.

[30] As stated, there is disagreement as to when the parties began to live separate and apart. Dietrich asserts that the parties separated on February 1, 2024. The parties both agree that they continued to reside separate and apart at the Cormac property through until the end of the 2024 year.

[31] Dietrich asserts that during this time she and Sprague had discussions respecting a division of the equity in the Cormac property. While they did not resolve the issues arising as a result of their separation, she claims Sprague provided her with payments amounting to $12,000 between March 6, and April 10, 2025.

[32] Dietrich asserts that on April 10, 2025, she and Sprague argued when she went to pick up her eldest child from the Cormac property and that Sprague assaulted her. She maintains that she was traumatized and fearful of him after that. She asserts she was particularly fearful of what Sprague's reaction would be with her commencing a family proceeding.

[33] Dietrich had moved all of her personal and business belongings to a sea container at the Cormac property. At some point subsequent to the parties' separation, she asserts that Sprague set the contents in the sea container on fire.

Sprague's History of the Relationship

[34] Sprague asserts that Dietrich is a "pathological liar, sociopath, drug addict, who defrauded welfare and who supports herself by shoplifting and selling stolen merchandise online."

[35] He confirms the parties began to live together in 2010 and that they have one daughter together, S.S. age 13.

[36] Sprague asserts the parties separated in May 2018 following a heated argument after which he maintains that Dietrich reported him to the police for growing and selling cannabis without a license, leading to his incarceration in 2021 and 2022.

[37] Once released from prison in 2022, Sprague asserts that the parties continued to reside in the home on the Cormac property but separate and apart under the same roof for financial reasons. In 2023, he found a job in Smooth Rock Falls. He maintains that because Smooth Rock Falls was an eight-hour drive from the Cormac property, this often required him to be away from home for three weeks at a time.

[38] Sprague asserts that in January 2025, he gave Dietrich the sum of $15,000.00 so that she could move out of the Cormac property to New Brunswick with S.S. He maintains that Dietrich promptly commenced this proceeding and then brought an urgent motion without notice to him.

[39] He also asserts that while he was in Smooth Rock Falls, Dietrich filed "phoney" criminal charges against him alleging that he had threatened to kill her and the children. As a result of the allegations made against him to the police, a warrant was issued for his arrest and Sprague ultimately turned himself in and charges were laid against him. As a release condition, he was required to wear an ankle monitor and was placed under house arrest.

[40] However, on August 11, 2025, the Crown Attorney withdrew all of the criminal charges filed against him.

[41] In response to the equitable claims advanced by Dietrich, Sprague states the following:

1. In 2012 he purchased the Floradale farm for $225,000.00;

2. His father helped him by providing him with a downpayment for the purchase of $70,000.00. There was no private lender as alleged by Dietrich and Dietrich made no monetary contribution toward the purchase price;

3. Sprague was solely responsible for working the Floradale farm and paid the mortgage, property taxes, and utilities without any financial contributions from Dietrich;

4. In February 2017, Sprague sold the Floradale farm and purchased the Cormac property for $489,000 in his name alone from his own funds;

5. Dietrich did not make any contributions to the downpayment or mortgage payments for the Cormac property;

6. Sprague's mother passed away in July 2020 and he used a substantial sum from his inheritance to pay down the mortgage on the Cormac property;

7. Sprague permitted Dietrich and her son to continue to live at the Cormac property after the date when he maintains the parties separated (May 2018) without charging rent or asking for any financial contribution; and

8. Sprague asserts that he and Dietrich were never married and that she "never contributed a dime" to the purchase or carrying costs on the Cormac property.

Litigation History

[42] Dietrich prepared materials to support an urgent ex parte motion. A hearing was scheduled for May 2, 2025. On that date Hooper J. granted a restraining order against Sprague and also granted Dietrich exclusive possession of the Cormac property.

[43] The family proceeding has had a number of attendances since, but the order of Hooper J. remains in place.

[44] On June 6, 2025 a fire started at the Cormac property. Dietrich maintains she was not home at the time and that it is her belief that it was an electrical fire. Sprague accuses Dietrich of deliberately starting the fire. The home on the property burned to the ground.

[45] The home insurer is presently denying coverage. It would appear that the policy premiums were in arrears and the policy may have been cancelled. Sprague accuses Dietrich of having intercepted/fraudulently signed for the letters the insurer had sent by registered letter to him.

[46] Sprague maintains that Dietrich had attempted to convince Sprague to set a fire to commit insurance fraud in the past.

Analysis

Restraining Order

[47] Sprague asks that the restraining order be cancelled. He maintains that there was no factual basis to justify such an order, and he accuses Dietrich of having obtained such an order through fraud. I do not have available to me a proper record of what was represented to Hooper J. when the restraining order was granted. I also do not have a record of what evidence was provided to her to support the making of that order.

[48] In any event, this aspect of the relief sought by Sprague is not currently contested by Dietrich provided that an order that the parties not communicate or harass each other be made in its stead. Given the very apparent escalation of hostilities between the parties, I am prepared to make such an order.

[49] As such, the restraining order shall be terminated and a mutual non-harassment order /non-communication order shall issue instead. The parties shall restrict any communication between them to be made through third parties and such communications shall be restricted to addressing issues respecting the parenting of S.S. Communication may also occur through their lawyers with respect to issues raised in this proceeding.

Exclusive Possession Order

[50] Both parties agree that it would be appropriate to set aside the terms of the order of Hooper J. to the extent it granted exclusive possession of the Cormac property to Dietrich and an order shall issue, on consent, terminating that order accordingly.

Certificate of Pending Litigation

[51] An order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation is permitted, in appropriate circumstances, pursuant to section 103 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43.

[52] The burden of proof on a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation is on the moving party but may shift to the opposing party on motion. The onus is first on the party claiming an interest in land to show that they have a reasonable claim to an interest in land that is subject to litigation. The threshold for showing a reasonable claim to an interest in land is low. Once established, the onus is on the party opposing the Certificate of Pending Litigation to demonstrate that there is no triable issue: Lippa v. Jawanshir, 2023 ONSC 5852, Roseglen Village For Seniors Inc. v. Doble, 2010 ONSC 3239, at para. 10.

[53] As such I must first consider whether Dietrich has shown that she has a reasonable claim to an interest in the Cormac property and if so, I must then consider whether Sprague has demonstrated that there is no triable issue.

[54] Dietrich's claim for an interest in the Cormac property is asserted based upon the equitable principles of unjust enrichment. As such, the elements that Dietrich will need to prove in order to establish a claim for unjust enrichment are: 1. a benefit, 2. a corresponding deprivation and 3. the absence of juristic reason for the benefit and the loss: Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] S.C.R. 269, at para 32.

[55] In Cameron v. Vincent, 2024 ONSC 6531 at paragraphs 65 - 94, I recently summarized the analysis required by Kerr v. Baranow to support a finding that the three elements supporting an unjust enrichment claim had been met and the remedies that could flow therefrom, including when the parties are found to be engaged in a joint family venture. In the appropriate case, an interest in property could result.

[56] At the present time, it is impossible to reconcile the disparities between the parties' conflicting representations respecting the history of their contributions toward the assets that are the subject matter of this litigation. Neither of them has yet proffered corroboratory documents which should be available, and which would assist the court to determine whose evidence is to be preferred. These issues must be flushed out upon production, disclosure and examination.

[57] Nevertheless, I conclude that the assertions of direct and indirect contribution made by Dietrich in her sworn Affidavit, which are detailed and significant in nature, are sufficient, in my view, to ground the conclusion that she has a reasonable claim to an interest in the Cormac property for the purpose of a certificate.

[58] Dietrich's evidence lays the foundation for an unjust enrichment claim. She asserts that she made both financial and non-financial contributions toward assets accumulated by the parties during the course of their relationship. She asserts that she made both financial and non-financial contributions toward the acquisition and improvement of the Cormac property. I am satisfied that, if Dietrich's evidence is accepted at trial, she has demonstrated that she conferred a benefit on Sprague by making contributions and improving assets owned by him, that she has demonstrated that she has not been properly compensated for those contributions (thus supporting the assertion that there was a corresponding detriment to her), and that there appears to be no juristic basis otherwise for the benefit and the loss.

[59] While I recognize that Sprague challenges the truthfulness of Dietrich's claims, his opposition to her claims remains an assertion at this point. Likewise, any suggestion that Dietrich was duly compensated for any contributions by her living at the Cormac property rent free, are assertions that support, in my view, the conclusion, absent clear evidence to the contrary, that there are issues to be tried.

[60] In this respect, Sprague's assertions that Dietrich made no contribution toward the acquisition or maintenance costs of the Cormac property are insufficient to demonstrate that there is no triable issue. Clearly there are credibility findings which will have to be made. Those credibility findings will be easier to determine once the supporting documents have been made available to prove and/or disprove the parties' respective recollections (i.e. the disparity between their evidence respecting how title was taken, how the purchase of the Cormac property was financed, and the extent to which either of them was actively engaged in the improvements made on the property). Those documents are not, at this point, available to examine. In my view, it is premature at this point to conclude that there is no triable issue.

[61] On this basis, I am prepared to grant Dietrich's request for a Certificate of Pending Litigation against the Cormac property and a temporary order shall issue accordingly.

Non-Dissipation Order

[62] Given the parties were not married and given the protections already afforded to Dietrich by virtue of the Certificate of Pending Litigation, I decline to make a non-dissipation order against Sprague's general assets as I do not believe that the circumstances justify this measure, absent special circumstances.

Disclosure Order

[63] I am satisfied that an order should issue requiring Sprague to provide the disclosure, including any particulars, respecting his insurance coverage and/or the denial of insurance coverage for the fire loss/es on the Cormac property, including the claims and inquiries and the answers received to those claims and inquiries, including the particulars of coverage for the contents at the Cormac property.

[64] Additionally, Sprague shall, within 30 days, serve and file a sworn financial statement (Form 13.1). Given the nature of a claim for unjust enrichment, the existence and extent of Sprague's assets as at the date of separation and to date is sufficiently relevant to the issues in this proceeding, even if there is no claim for an equalization.

Child Support

[65] Dietrich asks that an order for child support be made requiring Sprague to pay support for S.S. based upon his line 15000 income for 2024, being $41,496. The table amount which would be payable in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for this income would be $375 per month. While Dietrich acknowledges that Sprague is not presently working, she submits that there is no reasonable basis for him not to be working at present.

[66] Sprague submits that no order for support should be made presently. He argues that he gave Dietrich $15,000 in January 2025 which should be credited against any obligation to pay support at present. I note Dietrich disputes that the amount given to her was $15,000. However, she does admit to receiving $12,000 from Sprague between March 6, and April 10, 2025.

[67] Sprague advised that he was working up in Smooth Rock Falls for the Stuart Olson Industrial Constructors Inc. when Dietrich made the most recent allegations against him (spring 2025) resulting in charges being laid. He spent a week in jail pending being granted bail, and he was then subject to house arrest and unable to work. While he is no longer subject to such terms now that the charges were withdrawn (August 13, 2025), he has not yet returned to work. He states that he is prepared to notify Dietrich once he does return to work and commence paying child support at that time.

[68] I am not prepared to make a child support order at this time. I do not consider Sprague's 2024 income to be reflective and informative of his 2025 income given the intervening criminal charges and his inability to work as a result. Additionally, it is not contested that a lump sum of money was provided to Dietrich which needs to be accounted for and reconciled against Sprague's obligation to contribute to the support of S.S.

[69] In my view, the issue of child support needs to be revisited once Sprague has been given a reasonable opportunity to return to work. He is to make reasonable efforts to do so, and he is to provide Dietrich with the particulars of his employment income once that happens.

[70] My dismissing that aspect of the relief claimed by Dietrich in this motion is without prejudice to Sprague's obligation to pay child support being revisited after a reasonable period of time has passed, perhaps eight weeks time, absent Sprague first confirming his employment particulars and addressing the obligation voluntarily at that time. In my view, the extent to which the lump sum payment will be set off from his obligation to pay monthly support for S.S. will have to be addressed at trial when the court is better equipped with the evidence necessary to make that determination.

Disposition

[71] An order shall issue as follows:

1. The restraining order made against Sprague in this proceeding on May 2, 2025 is hereby terminated.

2. The parties are prohibited from harassing or communicating directly with each other. Any and all communications shall be restricted to communications relating to S.S. through a third party. Also, the parties' communications on the issues related to this proceeding may occur through their counsel.

3. The order for exclusive possession of the Cormac property is hereby terminated.

4. An order is hereby made granting a Certificate of Pending Litigation against the Cormac property, which property is legally described as: Lot 28, Concession 2, South Algona, except Part 1, 49R-1330, South Algona in the Township of Bonnechere Valley, being PIN 57463-0009.

5. Dietrich's request for a non-dissipation order is denied.

6. Dietrich's motion for child support is hereby dismissed on a without prejudice basis. Sprague shall immediately inform Dietrich when he commences employment with evidence of the terms of his anticipated salary/income.

7. Sprague shall disclose, with particulars, the details of his insurance coverage including the particulars of any denial of insurance coverage for the fire loss/es on the Cormac property. He shall include the particulars of any claims and inquiries made with the insurer and the answers received to those claims and inquiries. He shall also disclose the particulars of coverage for the contents at the Cormac property.

8. Additionally, Sprague shall, within 30 days, shall provide Dietrich with a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement.

Costs

[72] I consider success to be divided in this matter and that there should be no order for costs. However, if either party wishes to make submissions for costs, they shall arrange through the trial coordinator for a virtual attendance on a date available to both parties and their counsel to make submissions. In that event, the parties are to submit for my review at that attendance, copies of any offers to settle they intend to rely upon, which documents shall be filed two days in advance of the scheduled attendance.

M. Fraser J.

Released: September 25, 2025