CITATION: Ndubuisi v. Ndubuisi, 2026 ONSC 4783
COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-109967
DATE: 2026 06 08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Ndubuisi, Anuli
Isabella Buckley, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Ndubuisi, St. Iyke
Self-Represented, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: June 2, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Emery J.
[1] The applicant Anuli Ndubuisi brings this motion for an order providing for the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home at 54 Losino Street in Caledon Ontario (the “property”). She seeks that order on the terms for sale set out in Schedule “A” of the Notice of Motion. The same terms are attached to the draft Order she has filed on the motion.
[2] Ms. Ndubuisi also seeks an order that she receive 50 % of the net proceeds of sale of the property for her one-half interest in the property on the date the sale closes. Ms. Ndubuisi asks for an order that the other 50% of the net proceeds for Mr. Ndubuisi’s interest be dealt with as follows:
a. Those proceeds for Mr. Ndubuisi’s interest in the property be held in trust by the real estate lawyer, subject to a payment to her in the amount of $204,667.03 directly from those funds to satisfy the orders of this court dated May 2, May 26, and August 25, 2025 and of the Divisional Court dated October 10, 2025;
b. Alternatively, payment of all those funds to her if the amount representing Mr. Ndubuisi’s one half interest is less than $204,667.03;
c. The remaining net proceeds of sale, if any, shall be held in trust pending further order of the court or the agreement of the parties; and
d. Costs on a full recovery basis, to be paid from any funds remaining in trust.
[3] Mr. Ndubuisi filed responding materials to the motion and appeared by video-conference from where he is currently residing in Lagos, Nigeria. In his responding affidavit, factum and submissions, Mr. Ndubuisi made it clear at different times on the motion that he does not oppose, or that he consents to an order that the property be listed and sold immediately. He also does not oppose an order that 50% of the net proceeds of sale from the property by paid to Ms. Ndubuisi. He made these submissions without prejudice to his position that the court in Nigeria has jurisdiction over all “elements” of the family law case. The issues he opposes on the relief requested in Ms. Ndubuisi’s motion are as follows:
a. that carriage of the sale be given to Ms. Ndubuisi. Instead, he prefers terms that would provide for a joint or neutral sale protocol; and
b. that Ms. Ndubuisi be paid any amount from his 50% of the net proceeds of sale that should instead be held by the real estate lawyer in trust.
[4] As a preliminary issue, Mr. Ndubuisi asserted that the court in Nigeria has assumed jurisdiction over the family case and that, except for the property sale and the payment of 50% of the net proceeds of sale to Ms. Ndubuisi, the court in Nigeria has ruled it has jurisdiction over all other issues between the parties. Mr. Ndubuisi has arranged an appearance in triage court on June 9, 2026 to obtain a long motion date to argue the jurisdiction issue before this court later this year.
Jurisdiction to hear this motion
[5] I consider the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario to have jurisdiction over the unresolved issues to be determined on this motion. I find this court has jurisdcition for the following reasons:
In paras. 8, 9 and 10 of my endorsement released on May 26, 2025, I found this court had jurisdiction to allow Ms. Ndubuisi to renew the mortgage on the property, and to award child support to Ms. Ndubuisi for the children of the marriage who reside with her in Ontario. The motion of Mr. Ndubuisi for leave to appeal that order to the Divisional Court was dismissed;
The nature of the relief on those issues are inherently within the jurisdiction of this court as they are Ontario based issues by nature. The motion for partition and sale of the property is brought under the Partition Act which gives the Superior Court jurisdiction to make such an order for land situated in Ontario. The payments Ms. Ndubuisi seeks from Mr. Ndubuisi’s 50% of the proceeds are for amounts he has been ordered to pay under the court orders described above; and
A careful review of the orders made on the hearing of motions made in this proceeding to date and by the court in Nigeria does not preclude the court from deciding this motion ahead of Mr. Ndubuisi’s proposed motion for this court to determine the jurisdiction question.
Jurisdiction found to hear earlier motions
[6] The basis for making the first determination is contained in the paragraphs referenced in the endorsement dated May 26, 2025. The reasons for finding jurisdiction on that motion speak for themselves.
- Jurisdiction conferred by statute
[7] The basis for making the second determination is found in para. 1, where the term “court” in the statute is defined as the Superior Court of Justice, and where s. 3(1) reads that “any person interested in land in Ontario … may bring an action or make an application for the sale of such land under directions of the court …”.
[8] I further find that the Superior Court has jurisdiction to make such order is just to distribute proceeds of sale under an order under s. 3 through powers ancillary to the Partition Act, or by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court is determining the rights of the parties as joint owners of land when making an order under the Partition Act, and not as family law litigants.
[9] Ferrier J. of this court reached the same conclusion in Barrotti v. Barrotti, 2009 CanLII 64189. In that case, he held that the matter before him was a proceeding under the Partition Act and not under the Family Law Act. The property rights at issue did not relate to property rights arising from the marital relationship but were property rights of the joint owners and in equity (at para. 35).
- No impediment for this court to hear the motion
[10] This brings me to the basis for the third determination. In addition to my endorsement dated May 2025 in which I expressly found this court had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to renewing the mortgage against the property, Fragomeni J. made an order at the settlement conference held on November 18, 2025 granting Ms. Ndubuisi permission to bring a number of motions. One of those was a motion for an order vesting the property in her name. While this endorsement was not a ruling on jurisdiction to make that order, it was implied that the court had jurisdiction to hear that motion and could make such an order because the property was located in Ontario.
[11] In 2026, the parties were before Shaw J. on three occasions at which she made various orders that touched on the jurisdiction issue. The parties first attended before Shaw J. at triage court on January 6, 2026 where Mr. Ndubuisi was seeking a long motion date to bring his motion to argue that Nigeria, and not Ontario was the proper jurisdiction to hear this family law proceeding.
[12] Ms. Ndubuisi opposed Mr. Ndubuisi’s right to bring that motion for several reasons, chief among them because he has not complied with prior court orders.
[13] After Shaw J. observed that triage court was not the forum to argue substantive issues, Her Honour ordered the parties to file affidavits on the non-compliance Ms. Ndubuisi was alleging. She then adjourned the matter to January 19, 2026 to further consider scheduling the long motion if she was satisfied of Mr. Ndubuisi’s compliance with outstanding orders.
[14] On January 19, 2026, the parties re-attended before Shaw J. to continue the previous attendance in triage court. Mr. Ndubuisi advised Shaw J. at that time that he had commenced an action in Nigeria in November 2023 and argues that Ms. Ndubuisi had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court before she filed an objection to that court having jurisdiction. According to Mr. Ndubuisi, the court in Nigeria had found it had jurisdiction and had dismissed that objection on May 6, 2025.
[15] Shaw J. observed that Fowler Byrne J. had found this court had jurisdiction to make a ruling on parenting and support issues at a case conference on February 6, 2025 despite Mr. Ndubuisi’s position. She also noted my order dated May 26, 2025 where I found there was a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the issues to be addressed on the motion before me on May 2, 2025. Shaw J. stated that it was unclear to her if I had been aware of the findings of the court in Nigeria when I made my order and to what extent, if any, this may have had on my findings. Shaw J. also noted the endorsement of Fragomeni J. at the settlement conference on November 18, 2025 where he allowed Ms. Ndubuisi to bring various motions.
[16] With this background, Shaw J. granted permission for Mr. Ndubuisi to schedule a long motion to argue jurisdiction as that issue had not been fully argued since the court in Nigeria had made its ruling. Shaw J. also permitted Ms. Ndubuisi to bring a cross-motion to argue that Mr. Ndubuisi’s motion on jurisdiction be dismissed based on his non-compliance with existing court orders, and that jurisdiction has been determined.
[17] Ms. Ndubuisi was also permitted to proceed with her motion to seek orders under FLR 1(8) where a party has not complied with an order of the court.
[18] Shaw J. directed that these motions be heard at the same time “as the court may find that it will hear the jurisdiction motion if the applicant is not successful in having the motion dismissed”. Her Honour then set a timetable for the exchange of materials for those motions before the parties returned to triage court to have a hearing date set.
[19] Wilkinson J. issued an endorsement on April 28, 2026 when Mr. Ndubuisi requested an urgent motion or case conference to schedule the sequence of upcoming motions. He objected in particular to the motion Ms. Ndubuisi had brought for the sale of the property on June 2, 2026 and which is currently before the court. Wilkinson J. denied Mr. Ndubuisi’s request for an urgent hearing but held that he was entitled to raise the jurisdiction argument at the motion and deferred the question of hearing the motion to the discretion of the presiding judge.
[20] The parties appeared before Shaw J. in triage court for a third time on May 25, 2026. Her endorsement noted that Mr. Ndubuisi would be required to file a requisition to return the matter to triage court on June 9, 2026 to set a long motion date for the hearing of the jurisdiction motion and Ms. Ndubuisi’s motion under FLR 1(8). On that occasion, Shaw J. also noted that Ms. Ndubuisi had brought the motion on June 2, 2026, and that Mr. Ndubuisi had brought a motion returnable on July 3, 2026 to set aside the interim order for spousal support made on May 26, 2025 under FLR 25(19).
[21] Both parties were cautioned on the third attendance before Shaw J. that there could be cost consequences if the court finds that the motions on June 2 or July 3, 2026 cannot proceed while the jurisdiction motion remains outstanding.
[22] Neither party had put the order of the court in Nigeria made on May 6, 2025 into the record on this motion. Mr. Ndubuisi had served and filed an affidavit dated October 27, 2025 attaching a Ruling of the court in Nigeria as an exhibit for the settlement conference in November 2025. Mr. Ndubuisi referred to this earlier affidavit for the limited purpose of placing the Ruling dated May 6, 2025 before the court. I understand from Mr. Ndubuisi’s submissions that this is the Ruling from the court in Nigeria he relies upon to argue that the court in Nigeria has jurisdiction over the parties and their family case.
[23] I do not propose to determine the question of jurisdiction of the Superior Court in the family case before the long motion is heard. I need only find there is no reason that pre-empts me from exercising jurisdiction to decide the specific issues relating to land in Ontario. For the narrow purpose of finding that this court has jurisdiction to hear the motion of Ms. Ndubuisi to sell the property and to distribute the proceeds, I make the following observations.
[24] Counsel for Ms. Ndubuisi made submissions to the court in Nigeria in writing that the one issue for the court to determine was whether the court lacks jurisdiction to “entertain divorce proceedings” given her domicile in Canada. Counsel for both parties referred the court to s. 2(2) and (3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act when arguing domicile and how it was determined under that statute.
[25] The presiding judge framed the question before him as follows:
The issue for determination is whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
[26] It does not appear to me that the court identified the nature of the suit filed by Mr. Ndubuisi to start proceedings in Nigeria. The presiding judge made the Ruling based on findings of the domicile of the parties under Nigerian law. From the excerpt of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1970 provided in the Ruling, the court is given jurisdiction to hear a “matrimonial cause” under the Act. The definition of what constitutes a “matrimonial cause” is not provided in the Ruling or in any affidavit filed on this motion by Mr. Ndubuisi. I find it significant, however, that Mr. Ndubuisi states in para. 10 of his affidavit dated May 20, 2026 and filed on this motion that the court in Lagos has asserted jurisdiction “over the parties’ divorce and corollary issues (including child and spousal support) …” without reference to property claims.
[27] The presiding judge who issued the Ruling in Nigeria held that the domicile of the parties was Nigeria, and found that the court had the requisite jurisdiction to “entertain this suit”.
[28] On a plain reading of the Ruling, I do not consider the court in Nigeria to have defined the nature of the “suit” or the issues it has found it has jurisdiction to hear, or to what issues in that suit the governing statute would apply.
Conclusion on jurisdiction
[29] In my view, there is no evidence that the court in Nigeria made a finding that excludes the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice to make a ruling on issues involving land in Ontario. Until this court hears the long motion of Mr. Ndubuisi, the question of jurisdiction over property issues remains unresolved and jurisdiction may be exercised where the Superior Court may find it.
[30] I also find that making an order on the motion heard on June 2, 2026 is not inconsistent with any orders or directions made by judges at conferences or attendances in triage court since my endorsement dated May 26, 2025. Shaw J. ordered Mr. Ndubuisi’s jurisdiction motion and Ms. Ndubuisi’s cross-motion for non-compliance to be heard together. There was no such direction that requires this motion to sell the property to be heard at the same time as another motion. Indeed, the third endorsement that Shaw J. made on May 25, 2026 recognized the motions to be heard on June 2 and July 3, 2026 respectively.
[31] I therefore find that the (Ontario) Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear this motion.
Disposition of the motion on the merits
[32] Mr. Ndubuisi advised the court in his materials and in submissions that he is not opposed to an order for the sale of the matrimonial home (except for carriage of the sale) and the payment of 50% of the net proceeds immediately thereafter to Ms. Ndubuisi (without prejudice to his argument on jurisdiction). Mr. Ndubuisi made submissions later on the motion that he consents to that order.
[33] In view of Mr. Ndubuisi’s position, I am exercising my discretion to make the order for the partition and sale of the property under the Partition Act. Ms. Ndubuisi has a prima facie right to the partition and sale of the property: Davis v. Davis, 1953 CanLII 148 (ON CA), [1954] O.R. 23 (Ont. C.A.). Partition and sale should not be refused unless the responding party demonstrates that such an order should not be made and shows there was malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct on Ms. Ndubuisi’s part in relation to the sale itself: Marchese v. Marchese, 2019 ONCA 116, at para. 5.
[34] I have found no such conduct on the part of Ms. Ndubuisi in evidence to preclude the sale of the property under the Partition Act. The only evidence Mr. Ndubuisi has filed in response is the affidavit dated May 20, 2026 which does not directly allege malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct against her, but rather focuses on his side of the issues in this litigation.
[35] I further order that Ms. Ndubuisi is granted carriage of the sale. I am not ordering a mechanism for the parties to participate in selling the property on a joint basis or to employ a “neutral sale protocol”. For the reasons given at paras. 12-21 of the endorsement dated May 26, 2025, I found Mr. Ndubuisi’s refusal to renew the mortgage was unjustified and his position on that motion had been taken for strategic purposes. For the same reason, I find that he would in all likelihood impede the sale process. To provide a joint mechanism having regard to the history of the litigation would make the process cumbersome and fraught with opportunities for Mr. Ndubuisi to delay the sale of the property. The court must make an order that is just to carry out the objective of the order in such circumstances. See Bailey-Lewis v. Lewis, 2020 ONSC 7527, at paras. 3, 18 and 20-21.
[36] It is in Ms. Ndubuisi’s best interests to retain the best real estate agent and to market the property in the most favourable way to obtain the best sale price and close in a timely fashion. Giving her carriage of the sale is the most efficient way to maximize her 50% of the net proceeds.
[37] There shall be an order that Ms. Ndubuisi is authorized retain Ranjit Nijjar of ReMax Realty Services Inc. as the listing agent to sell the matrimonial home. The terms of sale attached as Schedule “A’ to the Notice of Motion shall be the terms for the sale, except that part of para. 5 that she shall be paid $204,667.03 from the 50% of the net proceeds to be held in trust by the real estate lawyer. I am ordering that Ms. Ndubuisi receive 50% of the net proceeds of sale for her own one-half interest in the property upon the closing of the sale. I am not ordering that she receive the amount claimed from the other 50% representing the half interest of Mr. Ndubuisi in the property at this time. That order may be made after the motion of Mr. Ndubuisi is heard on July 3 to set aside all or part of my order from May 2025, depending on the outcome.
[38] An order shall go in the form of the draft Order filed, except for the payment of $204,667.03 from the 50% of the net proceeds of sale attributable to Mr. Ndubuisi’s half interest in the property. That entire 50% shall be held in trust by the real estate lawyer or paid into court to the credit of this court file until further order of this court.
[39] Counsel for Ms. Ndubuisi is directed to submit a revised draft Order setting out the changes to the terms made in this endorsement. The revised draft in Word shall be submitted by email to the trial coordinator’s office, with a copy to Mr. Ndubuisi.
[40] Approval of the draft Order as to form and content is hereby dispensed with, provided the Order is reviewed and signed by me.
Costs
[41] The applicant may file written submissions on costs consisting of two pages (not including any offer to settle or bill of costs) by June 18. The respondent may file responding submissions subject to the same limits by June 28, 2026. No reply submissions shall be permitted.
[42] All written submissions on costs may be filed by email to my attention at scj.csj.general.brampton@ontario.ca
_______________________
Emery J.
Released: June 8, 2026
CITATION: Ndubuisi v. Ndubuisi, 2026 ONSC 4783
COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-109967
DATE: 2026 06 08
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Ndubuisi, Anuli
Applicant
- and –
Ndubuisi, St. Iyke
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Emery J.
Released: June 8, 2026