He failed to establish a valid claim for a resulting trust: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a former common-law partner cannot claim sole ownership of a jointly purchased home despite contributing more financially, ordering the property's sale and awarding interim spousal support to the other partner.
The parties were in a common-law relationship for 26 years and purchased a home together in 2006, intending it to be their "forever home." Both were medical doctors before retiring five years before their separation in 2023. The applicant sought the sale of the property and spousal support, while the respondent argued that his greater financial contributions entitled him to full ownership.
Although the applicant contributed $50,000 toward the down payment, the respondent covered additional financing, property taxes, and maintenance. The home was purchased as joint tenants, creating a presumption of equal ownership. Despite the respondent paying a larger share of expenses, the court found that their long-term financial planning and shared lifestyle indicated an intention to hold the property jointly.
The Superior Court determined that the respondent did not establish a valid claim for a resulting trust, which would have required proving that his financial contributions were not intended as a gift. The evidence showed that the parties managed their finances together, engaged in joint tax planning, and maintained a shared standard of living.
Under Ontario law, a joint tenant has the presumptive right to partition or sell a property unless the opposing party proves such a sale would be malicious, vexatious, or oppressive. The court found that the respondent's claim of hardship from selling the home was insufficient to override this right. As a result, the property must be listed for sale under standard market conditions, with both parties expected to cooperate in the process.
The applicant also sought spousal support, arguing financial dependence on the respondent during retirement. The court found that while the applicant had a high income at one point, their financial circumstances had changed. The court declined to award compensatory support, as there was no evidence that the relationship negatively affected the applicant's career. However, it ruled in favour of non-compensatory support, citing the couple's long-term relationship and shared financial planning.
Compared to the applicant's lower reported income, the respondent's significant post-retirement income and assets supported the court's finding that the applicant was entitled to support.
