The respondent wife brought a motion for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home prior to trial.
The applicant husband opposed the sale, arguing he had a competing interest under the Family Law Act because the wife would owe him an equalization payment greater than her share of the home's equity, based on his payment of carrying costs and a larger initial down payment.
The court found no legal basis for a notional credit for the down payment on a jointly owned asset and noted the husband's carrying costs could be offset by occupation rent.
The court concluded the husband failed to establish a competing interest, that a sale would not prejudice his rights, and that the wife's motion was not oppressive.
The motion for sale was granted, and the wife was awarded full recovery costs.
