Unmarried spouses do not have possessory rights to a ‘matrimonial home,’ court says
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered the sale of a Toronto property solely owned by the applicant, despite the respondent’s unresolved constructive trust and joint family venture claims.
The court also granted the applicant sole carriage of the sale process and ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 45 days.
In Fournier v. Giannousopoulos, 2026 ONSC 2813, the court found that the respondent’s equitable claims did not prevent the property from being listed and sold where the applicant had demonstrated significant financial hardship arising from maintaining the home on her own.
The parties, who were not married, are parents of three-year-old twin daughters and separated in November 2024 after living together in the property during their relationship. The applicant is the sole registered owner of the Toronto home, while the respondent remained in the property following the separation.
The applicant sought vacant possession and sole authority over the sale after nearly a year of unsuccessful attempts to obtain the respondent’s consent to list the property. She argued that she could no longer afford the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, and other expenses, all of which she had paid since the separation. Evidence before the court showed she had spent more than $76,000 on property-related and household expenses over 17 months.
The respondent opposed the motion, asserting a constructive trust interest in the property and claiming the parties had operated as a joint family venture. He argued that selling the property before trial would prejudice his alleged ownership interest and leave him homeless.
The Superior Court held that, under the Family Law Act, unmarried spouses do not have possessory rights to a “matrimonial home” when title is held by one party alone. The court further noted that unresolved trust claims do not necessarily bar the sale of property. The court relied on prior decisions holding that a sole owner may obtain vacant possession and sell the property while preserving any alleged equitable interest by ordering that the sale proceeds be held in trust pending trial.
The court declined to determine the merits of the respondent’s claims for trust and joint family venture at the motion stage, finding that those issues should be resolved at trial. However, the court concluded that the respondent’s interests would not be prejudiced because the net sale proceeds would remain in trust until further agreement or court order.
The court also found that the applicant had repeatedly attempted to negotiate the sale and secure the respondent’s cooperation, while the respondent had refused to engage. The court further cited evidence of aggressive conduct toward contractors working on repairs at the property in granting the applicant sole carriage of the sale.
Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 45 days and cooperate with repairs and showings in the interim. The court granted the applicant authority over all aspects of the listing and sale process, including the execution of agreements without the respondent’s consent. The net proceeds of sale are to be held in trust pending further proceedings.
