CITATION: Riemersma v. Riemersma, 2026 ONSC 3963
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Amanda Riemersma
Applicant
– and –
John Riemersma
Respondent
Mallory Lavin, for the Applicant
Philip Burger, for the Respondent
HEARD: July 6, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Motion for Temporary Exclusive Possession)
Abrams J.
Overview
1The Applicant seeks temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located at 34 Caintown Road, Mallorytown, Ontario, together with related relief respecting Apple Ridge Farm, a dog boarding and daycare business operating from the same property. The Applicant further seeks preservation and non-interference orders pending determination of the parties' property and financial claims.
2The Respondent opposes the motion. He submits that the matter is not urgent, that exclusive possession is a drastic remedy not justified on the evidence, and that he is the principal on-site operator of the business and has no alternative residence. He requests dismissal of the motion or, alternatively, an access regime permitting the Applicant limited attendance.
3This motion does not finally determine ownership of Apple Ridge Farm, the existence of any partnership or joint family venture, equalization, occupation rent, constructive trust claims, employment rights, or any other proprietary interest. Those issues must await a full evidentiary record.
4The sole question is whether, on an interim and without-prejudice basis, exclusive possession should be granted pursuant to s. 24 of the Family Law Act.
Findings of Fact
5The parties were married in 2002 and separated in November 2025 following a lengthy marriage. The matrimonial home is jointly owned.
6Apple Ridge Farm operates from the matrimonial property. While the Respondent asserts an ownership interest arising from his substantial contributions to the development and operation of the business, it is undisputed that the business is legally registered as the Applicant's sole proprietorship and that she has historically exercised formal management authority over its finances, staffing, scheduling, client relations and business administration.
7Following a domestic incident in April 2026, the Applicant became subject to criminal release conditions preventing attendance at the property.
8The evidence establishes significant conflict between the parties. Each accuses the other of misconduct. The court cannot resolve those credibility disputes on this motion. However, the evidence plainly demonstrates that cooperation between the parties has broken down, and that shared management of the property and business is presently unworkable.
9I accept that Apple Ridge Farm is closely tied to the property and cannot readily be relocated. I further accept that operational decisions frequently require immediate attention and that uncertainty regarding authority has adversely affected business operations, staff, and animal care responsibilities. While the extent of the disruption is contested, the evidence demonstrates a real risk of ongoing conflict affecting the business.
Applicable Law
10Sections 19 and 24 of the Family Law Act recognize the equal possessory rights of spouses in a matrimonial home and authorize the court to grant exclusive possession where appropriate.
11Exclusive possession is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted lightly. The court must consider the factors set out in s. 24(3), including:
the best interests of affected children;
existing orders;
the financial position of the parties;
any written agreement;
availability of alternative accommodation; and
any violence committed by one spouse against the other. The court's objective on an interim motion is not to determine ultimate rights but to fashion a practical arrangement that minimizes harm and preserves assets pending trial or further order.
Analysis Under Section 24
(a) Best Interests of Children
12There are no minor children. This factor is neutral.
(b) Existing Orders
13There are no family court orders materially affecting possession.
14The Applicant remains subject to criminal release conditions. While those conditions cannot be altered here, they do not prevent this court from determining possessory rights under the Family Law Act. As recognized in Kelly v. Kelly, 2009 CanLII 48506 (ON SC), family-law possession issues and criminal-law release conditions are distinct.
(c) Financial Circumstances
15This factor strongly favours the Applicant.
16The property is not merely a residence. It is the location from which Apple Ridge Farm operates. Whatever ultimate ownership findings may be made, the Applicant's income and livelihood are directly tied to the business.
17The evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has historically exercised managerial authority over the business. Her inability to access the property compromises her ability to supervise operations, maintain client relationships, manage staff and protect business goodwill.
18By contrast, while the Respondent undoubtedly performs important operational functions, those functions ultimately serve a business whose legal operation remains under the Applicant's authority pending determination of ownership issues.
19The continued viability of the business is directly linked to preservation of a significant family asset. On the interim record before me, preservation is most likely achieved through restoration of clear managerial authority rather than continuation of the current conflict-ridden arrangement.
(d) Availability of Alternative Accommodation
20The Respondent currently resides at the property and asserts that he has no alternative accommodation. The Applicant presently resides with her mother.
21On a purely residential analysis, this factor favours the Respondent.
22However, this is not an ordinary matrimonial home case. The property also houses a business requiring daily supervision and operational control. The Applicant's temporary accommodation with family does not provide access to her livelihood. Consequently, the weight of this factor is reduced.
(e) Violence
23Allegations of violence have been made by both parties.
24The existence of criminal charges against the Applicant is relevant but not determinative. The charge remains unproven. Equally, the Applicant alleges prior violence, threats and controlling behaviour by the Respondent. These allegations are vigorously disputed.
25I am unable to make definitive findings on the competing allegations.
26Nevertheless, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates entrenched conflict and a complete inability to cooperate. That conflict substantially supports the conclusion that shared occupancy and shared authority are not presently workable.
Apple Ridge Farm
27The Respondent argues that the business was jointly built during the marriage and that he may possess beneficial or partnership interests. That position is neither frivolous nor unsupported. It will require adjudication at a later stage.
28However, the existence of a future ownership dispute does not answer the present question.
29The court must determine what arrangement best preserves the business until those issues are decided.
30On the present record, I find that the business cannot function effectively under divided authority. The evidence of staff uncertainty, operational disruption, access concerns, and emergency-response difficulties demonstrates that continuation of the status quo risks damage to the enterprise.
31A temporary without-prejudice order granting the Applicant operational control is therefore the most practical means of preserving the business pending trial.
Conclusion
32After weighing all the statutory factors under s. 24, I conclude that the balance favours granting the Applicant temporary without-prejudice exclusive possession.
33This conclusion is driven not by any final finding respecting business ownership or the parties' competing allegations, but by the unique circumstance that the matrimonial property is inseparable from an ongoing business requiring centralized management.
34The current arrangement is unstable. A temporary order establishing a single decision-maker is necessary to preserve both the business and the underlying family asset.
Order
35THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Applicant shall have temporary without-prejudice exclusive possession of the matrimonial home property municipally known as 34 Caintown Road, Mallorytown, Ontario, pursuant to s. 24 of the Family Law Act.
The Applicant shall have temporary without-prejudice exclusive operational possession and control of Apple Ridge Farm, including authority over its staff, client relations, records, scheduling, accounts, animal-care decisions, equipment and day-to-day management.
This order shall not constitute:
a determination of ownership of Apple Ridge Farm;
a determination of any partnership, trust, or joint family venture claim;
a determination of equalization rights;
a determination of employment rights; or
a determination of any other property entitlement.
The Respondent shall vacate the property within a period seven (7) days and shall provide all keys, access devices, codes, passwords and other means of access reasonably required for operation of the property and business.
The Respondent shall not interfere with the Applicant's possession, occupation or management of the property or business pending further order.
Both parties are restrained from disposing of, encumbering, transferring, concealing or dissipating family property or business assets except in the ordinary course of business or by written agreement or further court order.
Apple Ridge Farm may continue to pay ordinary operating expenses, including payroll, utilities, taxes, insurance, animal-care expenses, mortgage obligations, repairs, maintenance and supplier accounts.
Either party may seek an expedited case conference or bring a motion to vary this order upon a material change in circumstances.
Costs are fixed in the sum of $3,500.00 (all inclusive) payable by the Respondent to the Applicant forthwith, as agreed.
The Honourable Mr. Justice B. W. Abrams
Released: July 07, 2026