Quinn Divorce Case
In the divorce proceedings of Quinn v. Epstein Cole, Lynda Quinn wanted to revisit the issue of her former husband’s financial records even though she had previously waived her claim to seek spousal support. The justice in the case had ruled that because she had waived her right to such support, it was truly unnecessary to revisit the records. Quinn then appealed the decision, stating that the justice erred by dismissing the financial revisit because it could have led to the discovery of substantial evidence in the divorce proceedings and that the justice was wrong in concluding there was no genuine issue for trial.
However, Quinn’s appeal was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay her former husband $50,000 for the dismissal due to a previous agreement between the two that the losing party in such appeals must pay that amount. The justice ruled that Quinn was not alleging that she was underpaid in her divorce settlement or that she sustained any kind of loss. The justice ruled that simply revisiting financial records of her former husband is not enough grounds for doing so and that her appeal was dismissed.
When experiencing a divorce, one of the largest assets a couple has is the matrimonial home. Whether a relationship is a mixed-gender marriage or a same-sex marriage, the matrimonial home is often an item of contention. Under Ontario Family Law, both parties in divorce proceedings have equal rights to live in the matrimonial home. If neither party wants to move out of the home, both may continue to live there until a court orders that one person must leave.
Because the matrimonial home is often owned by both parties in the marriage and both parties have a right to continue living there, neither party has a right to rent it out, sell it or make any financial changes to the property without the permission of the other. These domestic contracts laws are the same when only one spouse owns the home.
When one party wants to request that the other party move out, it may mean that the party that stays in the home must pay the other party a portion of the home’s value as a “buy out” or an “agreement for exclusive possession.” When this happens, it is common that neither party can end up affording to live in the home.