Facts
The Applicant wife and Respondent husband were married in 2002 and separated in November of 2025 after a lengthy marriage. They jointly owned the matrimonial home located in Mallorytown, Ontario. This property was also the operating location of Apple Ridge Farm, a dog boarding and daycare business.
Following a domestic incident in April 2026, the Applicant became subject to criminal release conditions preventing her from attending the property. At the same time, the parties’ relationship had deteriorated significantly, with each accusing the other of misconduct.
The Applicant brings a motion seeking temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, exclusive operational control of Apple Ridge Farm, and preservation orders protecting the business and family assets pending trial.
Issue
Should the Applicant be granted temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and family business under section 24 of the Family Law Act?
Analysis
Justice Abrams began by reviewing sections 19 and 24 of the Family Law Act, which recognize the equal possessory rights of spouses in a matrimonial home while allowing the court to grant exclusive possession where appropriate. The court reiterated that exclusive possession is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted after considering the statutory factors in section 24(3), including the best interests of any children, existing court orders, the parties’ financial circumstances, the availability of alternative accommodation, and any evidence of violence.
The purpose of this is to minimize financial harm and preserve assets pending trial or further order, not to determine the ultimate property rights of the Applicant or Respondent.
Children
This factor was neutral because there were no minor children.
Existing Orders
With respect to existing orders, there were no family court orders aƯecting possession of the property.
The court expressed that release conditions and family law possession orders address diƯerent legal issues and thus may operate independently. Therefore, the fact that the
Applicant remained subject to criminal release conditions, which prevented her from attending the property, did not determine possessory rights under Ontario family law.
Finances
The court noted that the property was not just a family residence but also the location of an active business from which the Applicant earned her livelihood. The factors in favor of the Applicant were that she primarily exercised management over Apple Ridge Farm, maintained client relationships, and oversaw finances. On the other hand, the Respondent primarily performed operational duties.
The court concluded that maintaining clear managerial authority was necessary to preserve the business as a significant family asset. Therefore, the financial circumstances of the parties strongly favored the Applicant.
Alternative Accommodation
The availability of alternative accommodation initially appeared to favor the Respondent because he continued living at the matrimonial home and claimed that he had nowhere else to reside; whereas the Applicant was temporarily living with her mother. However, the court assigned this factor less weight because the Applicant’s temporary residence did not provide access to her livelihood. Since the business could not be relocated easily and depended on daily supervision, the Applicant’s need for access to the property extended beyond sole residential occupation.
Violence and Conflict
Both parties accused each other of misconduct. Justice Abrams declined to make findings on an interim motion because the evidence was sharply disputed.
Conflict between the parties impacted the business in a very negative way. Such conflict created uncertainty among staƯ, disrupted operations, and complicated emergency decision-making involving the care of animals.
Therefore, the court came to the conclusion that shared occupation and joint management of the property was not a viable option.
Conclusion
After weighing all the statutory factors under section 24 of the Family Law Act, the court granted the Applicant temporary, without-prejudice exclusive possession of the matrimonial home together with exclusive operational control of Apple Ridge Farm. The Respondent was ordered to vacate the property within seven days, provide all keys, passwords, and access devices necessary for operating the home and business, and
refrain from interfering with the Applicant’s possession or management. Both parties were also restrained from disposing of family property or business assets except in the ordinary course of business or by further court order. The business was permitted to continue paying ordinary operating expenses, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant agreed costs of $3,500.
This decision demonstrates courts may grant exclusive possession on a temporary basis and without truly resolving property claims where a matrimonial home is inseparable from an operating business whose continued success depends on centralized management.