CITATION: Grand v. Grand, 2026 ONSC 2386

COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-0297-00

DATE: 2026-04-22

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Jaden Sandra Grand

Self-Represented

Applicant (Moving Party)

• and -

Christopher Tanko Grand

Self-Represented, did not appear during the argument of the motion

Respondent

HEARD: April 9, 2026, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Decision On Motion

Introduction

1This is a motion brought by the applicant, Jaden Sandra Grand (“the Applicant”), seeking an order requiring the sale of the matrimonial home located at 43 Strathcona Avenue, Thunder Bay, Ontario (“the Matrimonial Home”).

2The Applicant filed her motion and supporting affidavit evidence in support of the relief she is seeking. The respondent, Christopher Tanko Grand (“the Respondent”), on the other hand, has thus far not filed any documents, i.e., none in response to the originating Application filed by the Applicant, and no documents in response to the present motion.

3While discussed in the endorsement of Lepere J. dated April 2, 2026, in addition to my endorsement following the motion heard on April 9, 2026, the Respondent has made some efforts to participate in this litigation process. He has previously indicated to the Court that he intended to file documents and was provided with the opportunity to do so by Lepere J., subject to this motion being peremptory on the Respondent with respect to the April 9, 2026 hearing. In addition, during motions’ court on April 9, 2026, the Respondent was present in the courtroom, but disappeared once this motion was called forward to be addressed. Phone calls to the Respondent by the Registrar went unanswered, and as such, the motion proceeded in his absence.

4The Respondent also failed to serve nor file any documents, resulting in the motion being argued solely on the basis of the materials filed by the Applicant.

5On Friday, April 17, 2026, I released an endorsement that the Matrimonial Home shall be listed for sale. These are my reasons in support of my decision.

Background Facts

6The Applicant and the Respondent began living together on January 1, 2008. They married on October 9, 2015, and separated on January 21, 2025.

7There are two children of the marriage, namely Joni Grand who was born on July 1, 2022, and Levon Grand who was born on July 31, 2019 (“the Children”).

8The Matrimonial Home was purchased in the Spring of 2022 at a time when the Applicant and the Respondent were married. Title to the Matrimonial Home reflects the Applicant and the Respondent as joint tenants. Following the separation of the parties, they continued to reside in the Matrimonial Home until November 9, 2025 when the Applicant and the Children left and moved into the home of a friend of the Applicant.

9A restraining order was made on December 18, 2025 which restricts the Respondent from contacting the Applicant. Since the Applicant and the Children moved out of the Matrimonial Home, the Respondent remained and continues to reside there.

10With respect to the ongoing costs of the Matrimonial Home, including the mortgage, taxes and utilities, since the Respondent is not currently employed, the Applicant has had to take care of these.

11Most recently, after the Applicant vacated the Matrimonial Home, the bi-weekly mortgage payments went unpaid from early December 2025 to the middle of February 2026. With the bank threatening to put the arrears into collection, the Applicant came up with the money and paid the arrears in the amount of approximately $6,700.00.

12Since the middle of February 2026, the mortgage payments have continued to go unpaid, and currently arrears have accumulated again in the amount of $8,386.13 as of the date the motion was heard.

13According to the endorsement of Lepere J. dated April 2, 2026, the Respondent acknowledged the status of the arrears and is noted to have told the Court that he would be paying these arrears down on that day. During submissions on this motion, the Applicant confirmed that no payments were made by the Respondent, and the arrears have continued to accumulate.

14At the present time, the Applicant is only working part time, and has found herself and the Children living in a bedroom within the home of a friend. While she would prefer to be in the Matrimonial Home with the Children, the Respondent has not agreed to vacate the Matrimonial Home for this purpose. This would be required based upon the Restraining Order, which was issued due to aggressive conduct demonstrated towards the Applicant, possibly related to ongoing substance abuse issues with which the Respondent is attempting to address.

15The Respondent is also currently exercising supervised parenting on a limited basis with the Children.

16Bottom line, the Applicant cannot continue living with the Children in a bedroom, and sees no alternative to moving forward other than selling the Matrimonial Home and using the net sale proceeds to begin her new life. There is no income source from her, nor the unemployed Respondent which can meet the financial needs of the Matrimonial Home, and there will be no asset to divide if the mortgage is not properly brought into good standing. The Matrimonial Home has to be sold, and the Applicant brought this motion seeking same.

The Law

17Based on Lehto v. Dumonski, 2026 ONSC 1341, at para. 22, and Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 2020 ONSC 3971, at para. 16, the principles set out in the case law that are applicable to this motion include:

a. Section 2 of the Partition Act empowers the court to order the sale of a jointly owned property.

b. A joint tenant has a prima facie right to an order for the partition and sale of a property held with another joint tenant.

c. A court is required to compel partition and sale unless the opposing party has demonstrated that such an order should not be made.

d. The onus is on the party opposing the sale to establish that there is a sufficient reason, recognized in law, as to why the court should exercise its discretion to refuse sale.

e. Judicial discretion to refuse an order for partition is limited to instances where there is evidence that the party seeking the sale has acted maliciously, vexatiously, or oppressed the party who does not want the property to be sold.

f. In family law cases, an order under the Partition Act should generally not be made until any dispute related to the property has first been determined.

g. A partition application should generally not be granted where it can be shown that a legitimate claim would be unfairly prejudiced.

h. In assessing and guarding against potential prejudice, the court must take a realistic view of the potential impacts of a sale, both positive and negative, in relation to the interests of both joint tenants and the family as a whole.

i. If a sale of the property would be the inevitable result at a trial based upon the financial and other circumstances of the parties, then the sale should not be delayed.

j. The court must consider and attempt to guard against potential prejudice, ensuring that any realistic issues or claims yet to be determined on a final basis are not prejudiced or precluded if a property is ordered to be sold.

k. The court must consider the impact of a proposed sale on children or a vulnerable spouse, including the emotional impact, and the fundamental need to ensure that they have appropriate housing. The availability and affordability of alternate housing must be considered.

l. Order for the sale of a matrimonial home at the interim stage should not be made as a matter of course. The court must be mindful of the whole of the proceeding, and the need to achieve a final resolution for the family as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

m. Timing can be a relevant consideration in dealing with a motion for sale at a temporary stage. The availability of a trial within a short period might reduce the pressure for an immediate sale.

n. A request for sale during summer months may entail some timeliness if seasonal market conditions are favourable.

18Other considerations include s. 21 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”), which prohibits alienation of the matrimonial home as follows:

(1) No spouse shall dispose of or encumber an interest in a matrimonial home unless,

(a) the other spouse joins in the instrument or consents to the transaction;

(b) the other spouse has released all rights under this Part by a separation agreement;

(c) a court order has authorized the transaction or has released the property from the application of this Part; or

(d) the property is not designated by both spouses as a matrimonial home and a designation of another property as a matrimonial home, made by both spouses, is registered and not cancelled.

19However, on application, s. 23 of the FLA allows the court to authorize disposition or encumbrance of the matrimonial home if the court finds that the spouse whose consent is required (i) cannot be found or is not available; (ii) is not capable of giving or withholding consent; or (iii) is unreasonably withholding consent. In these circumstances, the onus is on the party withholding consent to show that it is not unreasonable to do so: see Jarvis v. Jarvis, 2023 ONSC 7203, at para. 15, citing Jamil v. Iqbal, 2014 ONSC 4650, at para. 6; Goldman v. Kudeyla, 2011 ONSC 2718, at para. 19. Notably, this has been formulated based on the best interests of the children.

20In Jarvis v. Jarvis, Akazaki J. had to determine whether to grant an order for sale of a matrimonial home under s. 23 of the FLA. The father was the sole owner of the home and paid for all expenses. There were two children. The father moved out and asked the mother’s consent – numerous times – to sell the home in order to ameliorate the parties’ ability to look after the children. The mother always refused.

21Akazaki J. defined the issues in this manner: (1) the mother’s opposition to the sale on the basis of her inability to afford alternate accommodation and on the basis of the stability of the lives of the school-age children; and (2) the serious financial hardship to the father.

22The mother had the onus to demonstrate that withholding consent was not unreasonable. In examining the FLA and Partition Act, as well as the best interests of the children principles, Akazaki J., at para. 21, ultimately concluded that “the circumstances of the children clearly dictate that it is in their best interests to free up the capital locked into the home, to allow the parents to relieve financial pressure”. Notably, the father proposed an equal partial distribution of the funds which the Court observed as “considering the best interests of the whole family”.

23In concluding that part of the test for determining the right to sell must be whether there exists “malicious, vexatious, or oppressive” motive or conduct on the part of the party proposing the sale, there being no such conduct by the father, the motion was granted.

24More recently in Nasser v. Nasser, 2024 ONSC 303, Mandhane J. considered the sale of the matrimonial home by two retired parties, with two, independent adult children. The Court restated the principles for a sale of the matrimonial home under s. 23 in a succinct manner:

As a joint tenant, the Respondent is prima facie entitled to partition and sale of the home. However, a motion for partition and sale will not proceed where it can be shown that such a motion will prejudice the rights of either spouse under the FLA, or if the party seeking the sale has been malicious, vexatious or oppressive in pursuing the sale.

25Mandhane J. ordered the sale of the home, including the requirement that both parties were to cooperate fully with the listing and sale of the property.

Decision

26In this case, the motives of the Applicant are not malicious, vexatious or oppressive. The Applicant simply recognizes the financial implications of the breakdown of the family unit. In the face of the Respondent’s unemployment, and the Applicant’s inability to pay the costs associated with the Matrimonial Home – mortgage, utilities, taxes – based upon the income from her part time employment, selling the Matrimonial Home is the only viable option.

27No plan has been presented by the Respondent which could finance the continued retention of this family asset. From the evidence provided by the Applicant, he does not currently have the financial ability to cover the carrying costs of the Matrimonial Home, and his failure to participate in this motion means there is no evidence which can be relied upon to suggest there is any alternative to the partition and sale requested by the Applicant.

28There are no “bests interests of the children” considerations in play such that the sale of the Matrimonial Home will result in their displacement. The Applicant and the Children are not residing in the Matrimonial Home, and instead are crammed into a single bedroom within a home which is not their own. The sale of the Matrimonial Home will therefore not require them to depart from a residence which has no doubt provided some security and stability for them in the past. The Respondent has insisted on remaining in the Matrimonial Home while knowing the situation with the Applicant and the Children, suggesting that even the Respondent does not think it is in the best interests of the Children to continue living in the Matrimonial Home.

29In fact, the best interests of the Children would support the sale of the Matrimonial Home so that both the Applicant and the Respondent can free up capital which can be used to start their new lives. Indefinitely living together with their mother in a single bedroom within a house which is not their own cannot, by any reasoning, be in the Children’s best interests.

30With respect to the sale of the Matrimonial Home potentially prejudicing the ultimate disposition of the family law issues arising between the Applicant and the Respondent, the evidence does not support this being an issue. No Answer has been filed by the Respondent which could suggest an unequal division of net family properties, or constructive trust claims. The failure of the Respondent to file any materials in response to the litigation commenced by the Applicant means no issues have been raised which could be relevant to the partition and sale relief sought by the Applicant.

31The Matrimonial Home was purchased during the marriage. No evidence from the Applicant suggests that the ultimate resolution of issues arising from the breakdown of her marriage to the Respondent will in some way require special considerations regarding the Matrimonial Home. The Matrimonial Home in this case, like many others, is the main asset from the marriage, and its sale will not prejudice any future decisions impacting the Respondent’s property claims.

32Without any reason to hold off selling the Matrimonial Home, and based upon the economic necessity to do so as established by the Applicant’s evidence, the Matrimonial Home shall be immediately listed for sale.

33Both parties shall do, immediately and diligently, all the things which are necessary in order to facilitate marketing of the Matrimonial Home.

34The parties shall jointly select a listing agent for the Matrimonial Home within seven days of this decision. If there is any disagreement as to the listing agent or the listing price, then the parties may return to me to decide those issues.

35The parties shall accept any reasonable offer in relation to the Matrimonial Home.

36Pending the sale of the Matrimonial Home, the parties shall forthwith take all steps available to them to attempt to secure a deferral of mortgage payments from the bank.

37The net sale proceeds from the sale of the Matrimonial Home shall be held in trust, pending further order of this Court or a written agreement as between the parties.

38Any other issues which remain outstanding with respect to the listing and sale of the Matrimonial Home and which the Applicant and the Respondent are unable to resolve shall come back to me for resolution and decision.

The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski