If you are experiencing Intimate Partner Violence (“IPV”), and you’re not on title to the family home, one of your biggest fears may be the question: “Do I have to leave?”
The answer is: Maybe not.
Many of our clients wrongly assume that if their spouse or partner owns the home they are living in together as a couple, then after separation they have no choice but to move out. But under Ontario Family law, this is not always the case.
Protecting Victims of IPV
As we discussed in our earlier Blog about the various remedies available to victims of IPV, Canadian law currently offers several protections – and in fact, under a very recent decision in a case called Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, the Supreme Court of Canada has added even more. The Court has expressly recognized a brand-new civil tort, that in certain circumstances allows victims of IPV to claim monetary damages from their abusers.
In some cases, these established protections can even extend to possessing (not owning) the matrimonial home you happen to share with your abusive spouse – even if you’re not on title.
Ousting a Domestic Abuser
A recent Ontario case called Anyanwu v. Anyanwu is an important example of how those protections can work in practice.
In that case, the court dealt with a high-conflict separation between a couple who married in 2015 and had three children. The husband had been abusive during their relationship: At one point he was alleged to have choked the mother, who fled to a women’s shelter with the children. He was able to locate them there, because he had placed at tracking device in her car.
Ultimately, they separated about 10 years into the marriage, after the husband was arrested on multiple criminal charges. He moved out of their home, even though he was the sole owner.
As part of their divorce, the husband came before the court asking to move back into the matrimonial home where the wife and children were living. The wife resisted, explaining that the husband had engaged in family violence (which he denied). She alleged that his behaviour included coercive control, surveillance, harassment, and intimidation – some of which were witnessed by their kids.
The court refused the husband’s request to move back in – even though he was still the registered owner on title. Instead, it granted “exclusive possession” of the home to the wife, which would continue until the parties’ divorce issues were resolved by a court in the future.
In arriving at this conclusion, the court noted that the Ontario Family Law Act expressly directs the court to consider a list of factors when making such an order; they include:
- the best interests of the children affected;
- any existing court orders about property, and any about support;
- the financial position of both spouses;
- any written agreement between the parties;
- the availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and
- any violence committed by a spouse against the other spouse or the children.
In this case, the key factors that favoured an order for exclusive possession were the best interests of the children (especially around stability), and the financial harm to the wife if she was forced to move elsewhere with them.
The Takeaway for Victims of IPV
The decision in Anyanwu highlights several important points for any victim of IPV:
- Legal ownership of (title to) the home is not always the deciding factor. Ontario courts can temporarily give one spouse exclusive possession of the matrimonial home if the circumstances justify it.
- Courts focus heavily on safety and the well-being of children. In Anyanwu, the judge emphasized the children’s emotional safety, stability, and exposure to conflict when deciding whether the husband should be allowed to return to the home.
- Family violence is not limited to physical assaults. The judge considered allegations involving surveillance cameras, intimidation, harassment, controlling behaviour, and coercive conduct as part of the broader family violence picture.
- Courts may consider whether living together is realistically safe or workable. In the Anyanwu case, the husband proposed moving back into the home with a nanny and security cameras to “keep the peace.” The court rejected the idea, finding that it could actually increase conflict, and create further emotional harm for the family.
- Financial concerns do not automatically outweigh safety concerns. The husband argued that he was under financial pressure and wanted to return to the home partly for economic reasons. The court nevertheless concluded that the children’s and mother’s safety and stability came first.
Note that in some cases, the spouse who leaves the home may still be ordered to keep paying household expenses. In the Anyanwu case, the court ordered the husband to continue paying the expenses associated with the matrimonial home even after he was excluded from it.
Get Good Advice
Every family situation is different, and not every case will lead to an exclusive possession order. But the important point is this: if you are experiencing IPV, you may have more legal protections than you realize.
Feel free to give us a call, to consider your options.
For the full text of the decisions, see:
Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kkzk1>
Anyanwu v. Anyanwu, 2026 ONSC 980 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kjhpf>
