.2209090707550.jpg)
Background:
Ms. Runolfson (the Applicant) and Mr. Runolfson (the Respondent) were married in 1999, and have three children together, now aged 16, 21, and 23 respectively. At the time of this proceeding, the parties contested the date of their separation, although litigation began in 2021. The parties sold their matrimonial home in 2024 for $2 million, with $933,000 of the net proceeds held in trust pending resolution of property and support issues.
The Applicant, a Chartered Professional Accountant and Business Valuator, sought the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage located on a leased lot pursuant to the Partition Act. The Respondent opposed the sale until after equalization was resolved, citing his intention to bid on the property. The Respondent also brought cross-motions regarding business valuations, reimbursement for their children’s university expenses, and post-separation costs.
The Law:
With respect to the Applicant’s request for the immediate sale of the parties’ cottage, the Court relied upon the Partition Act, which provides that joint tenants or tenants-in-common are presumptively entitled to a sale of jointly held property unless the opposing party establishes that the application is malicious, vexatious, oppressive, or would prejudice substantive rights under the Family Law Act (affirmed by jurisprudence, including Silva v. Silva, 1990; Latcham v. Latcham, 2002).
In Silva v Silva (1990), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that concerns about enforcing equalization payments do not, on their own, justify delaying a sale under the Partition Act. Rather, since a joint tenant is presumptively entitled to an order for sale, the opposing party must demonstrate that the request for sale is “malicious, vexatious, or oppressive,” or that sale would prejudice their rights under the Family Law Act. More recently, Brohman v Brohman, 2025 ONSC 1667 reaffirmed Silva by confirming that delay of a sale pending equalization is not justified unless prejudice is clearly demonstrated.
Regarding the Respondent’s claim for reimbursement for the children’s post-secondary expenses, the Court referenced section 31 of the Family Law Act, which establishes a parental obligation to support children enrolled in full-time education, based on the means of each parent. Additionally, Menegaldo v Menegaldo, 2012 ONSC 2915 provides a framework for determining parental contributions toward post-secondary education, considering factors such as student loans, the child’s income, and the reasonableness of costs.
Analysis:
Business Valuations and the Delay in Litigation:
The Court found the Applicant mother’s failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines for business valuations contributed significantly to litigation delays. Despite being ordered to retain her own expert for independent valuations, including for her company and the Respondent’s business, she attempted instead to critique the Respondent’s reports. The Court rejected this approach, emphasizing that absent agreement or a joint expert arrangement, parties are required to provide substantive valuation reports in accordance with procedural fairness and prior Case Conference directions. This ruling reinforces the importance of financial disclosure obligations in family property matters.
University Expenses and Use of RESP Funds:
The Respondent father sought reimbursement for $62,423 in post-secondary expenses paid on behalf of the parties’ two eldest children. In determining whether the Respondent was entitled to reimbursement by the Applicant, the Court applied s. 31 of the Family Law Act and the analytical framework from Menegaldo, which considers factors such as the child’s means, parental ability to contribute, and availability of RESP funds. Despite the mother’s objections to certain expenditures (e.g., lifestyle costs), the Court found her delay and lack of concrete objections unreasonable, particularly given her professional background. An interim order granted the father $50,000, with the balance of $12,423 reserved for trial.
Post-Separation Expenses:
The parties’ 2022 Separation Agreement contemplated cost-sharing for the matrimonial home, the cottage, and the Respondent’s rental housing. The mother’s failure to contribute her share of post-separation expenses led the father to seek reimbursement of $100,313. The Court acknowledged both parties’ claims of procedural non-compliance, but concluded that the mother’s failure to engage in a meaningful reconciliation of expenses financially prejudiced the father. As such, the Court ordered an interim reimbursement of $60,000, with the remainder reserved for trial.
Sale of the Cottage Property Under the Partition Act:
The Court rejected the father’s argument that the sale should be delayed pending equalization. Citing Silva and Brohman, the Court held that a party’s wish to preserve funds to bid on a property does not constitute legal prejudice sufficient to bar partition and sale. Furthermore, no evidence supported the claim that the faith-based community context in which the cottage was located or right of first refusal would impede a fair sale. The Court affirmed that joint owners are entitled to a sale absent vexatious or oppressive intent, which the mother’s request did not demonstrate. Conditions were imposed to allow both parties fair opportunity to bid, with the sale process structured to promote transparency and minimize conflict.
Conclusion:
Altogether, the Court (1) ordered the mother to complete business valuations with strict deadlines; (2) granted the father interim relief for both post-secondary and post-separation expenses; (3) ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the jointly owned cottage, rejecting arguments for delay based on equalization concerns; and (d) directed that both parties have the opportunity to bid on the property, subject to an agreed sale process.
This case not only underscores the limited scope for resisting partition and sale under Ontario law, but ultimately emphasizes the expectation that separated spouses will act reasonably and expeditiously
in resolving financial matters, especially where delay risks compounding financial and emotional hardship.