A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling has reaffirmed a key legal principle in common-law property disputes: financial contributions alone do not entitle one partner to full ownership of a jointly purchased home. In this case, the court ordered the sale of the property and awarded interim spousal support to the applicant, rejecting the respondent’s claim for sole ownership despite his greater financial contributions.
Joint Tenancy and the Presumption of Equal Ownership
The couple had been in a common-law relationship for 26 years and purchased their home together in 2006 as joint tenants—a legal designation that carries a presumption of equal ownership regardless of individual financial contributions. Despite the respondent covering a larger share of costs over the years, the court emphasized that their long-term financial planning and shared lifestyle suggested an intent to own the home jointly.
Under Ontario law, joint tenancy means that both parties are presumed to have equal rights to the property unless proven otherwise. In this case, the court rejected the respondent’s argument that his greater financial contributions entitled him to full ownership.
No Valid Claim for a Resulting Trust
The respondent sought to override the joint tenancy by claiming a resulting trust, which would have required proving that his financial contributions were not intended as a gift but rather as an investment in the property solely for his benefit.
However, the court did not accept this argument, ruling that:
- The couple had a long-standing financial partnership, including joint tax planning and shared expenses.
- The respondent did not provide sufficient evidence that his contributions were meant to exclude the applicant from ownership.
- The home was originally intended to be their “forever home”, reinforcing the assumption of shared ownership.
Since the respondent failed to meet the legal burden of proof, the court upheld the applicant’s equal interest in the property.
The Right to Partition and Sale
The applicant sought to sell the home, a right that joint tenants in Ontario typically hold unless the opposing party can demonstrate that such a sale would be malicious, vexatious, or oppressive. The court ruled that:
- The respondent’s claims of hardship from the sale were not sufficient to prevent the sale from proceeding.
- The property must be listed for sale under standard market conditions, with both parties expected to cooperate in the process.
This decision aligns with Ontario property law, which generally favours the sale of jointly owned property when one party wishes to sever joint ownership.
Spousal Support Awarded Despite No Career Disadvantage
The applicant also sought spousal support, arguing financial dependence on the respondent in retirement. The court examined the applicant’s financial circumstances and determined that:
- Compensatory support (based on career sacrifices made during the relationship) was not warranted, as the applicant had a successful career and no evidence suggested their earning capacity was negatively impacted by the relationship.
- Non-compensatory support (based on need and standard of living) was appropriate, given the couple’s long-term financial interdependence.
While the applicant previously had a high income, their current financial situation was less stable compared to the respondent, who maintained significant post-retirement income and assets. As a result, the court ruled in favour of interim spousal support.
Key Takeaways from This Ruling
- Jointly owned property is presumed to be shared equally, even if one party contributes more financially.
- Resulting trust claims require clear evidence that financial contributions were not intended as a gift.
- Joint tenants have the right to sell a property unless the sale would be malicious or oppressive.
- Spousal support can still be awarded post-retirement, even if there is no career disadvantage, based on financial need and interdependence.
Final Thoughts
This case serves as a critical reminder for common-law couples: financial contributions alone do not necessarily determine property rights. Legal ownership designations, financial planning, and the nature of the relationship all play a significant role in court decisions.
For individuals in long-term common-law relationships, it’s essential to consider cohabitation agreements and estate planning to clearly define ownership and financial arrangements.
