(905) 415-1636

Will Beverly Hills Real Housewife be Kicked to the Curb?

Reality TV star, Yolanda Foster, and musician husband, David Foster, have
been a hot topic in celebrity gossip this week after the couple recently
announced plans to divorce. Yolanda is currently living in David’s
condo while he stays in a hotel and she will not allow him to access the
condo even to use his piano for work.

David wants Yolanda to move out of his condo so that he can reside there,
however, Yolanda refuses to budge. She claims that she has nowhere else
to live and there are reports that she is experiencing financial and health
difficulties.

Yolanda and David’s lawyers are hoping the matter will settle, however,
should the matter go to court, a judge may have to determine the issue
of who will possess the condo going forward.

In Ontario, Canada, our courts determine issues like those facing the Fosters
pursuant to the
Family Law Act (FLA). The FLA addresses certain
property rights in addition to many other family issues.

Part II of the FLA sets out that each spouse has equal right to possess
the matrimonial home even if one of the spouses has no ownership interest
in the home. In situations like that of Yolanda and David, this means
that both spouses would have equal right to live in the condo provided
that it qualifies as a matrimonial home.

What is a matrimonial home?

Section 18(1) of the FLA defines a
matrimonial home as follows:

Every property in which a person has an interest and that is or, if the
spouses have separated, was
at the time of separation ordinarily occupied by the person and his or
her spouse as their family residence
is their matrimonial home.
(R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 18 (1)).

A couple
may have more than one matrimonial home, however, the property
must be located in Ontario. It is also necessary that both spouses occupy the home at the date of
separation, although they need not stay in the home year-round. This means
that, for example, a couple’s matrimonial homes may include all of
the following:

  • The couple’s cottage at which they spend most weekends throughout each summer;
  • The couple’s ski chalet at which they reside during winter holidays
    and weekend’s during the winter each year; and
  • The couple’s down-town condo in which they reside when they are not
    at the cottage or the challet.

If there are multiple matrimonial homes, both spouses’ possessory rights
apply to all of their matrimonial homes.

For the Fosters, this means that even though David is the only one with
an ownership interest, the condo would be a matrimonial home provided
that he and Yolanda occupied the property as a family residence at the
date of separation. This does not mean they needed to have spent most
of their time there or that they need to have been present in the home
when they separated. Understandably, many Ontario spouses winterize their
lake-front cottages so that they can enjoy family time at their slope-side
chalet during winters. Those spouses do not lose their possessory rights
simply because they happen to separate during the winter. In fact, it
often sufficient that the spouses had a pattern of spending holidays or
weekends in the home while generally residing elsewhere on work days.

Who has possessory rights?

It is important to note that the definition of “spouse” in this
part of the FLA is limited to those who are legally married. David and
Yolanda are married and would therefore qualify as spouses under Part
II of the FLA, however, unmarried couples should consider the differences
between rights of married vs unmarried spouses. Unlike other parts of
the FLA in which unmarried couples may be defined as spouses if they are
cohabiting in a common law relationship, Part II of the FLA only applies
to married spouses. Therefore, only married people have possessory rights
under Part II of the FLA. Individuals that are cohabiting or in common
law relationships may have rights with respect to their family home even
without having legal title, however, unmarried and divorced individuals
will not have possessory rights pursuant to Part II of the FLA.

Given that both spouses have possessory rights, is there any way for one
spouse to exclude the other from their matrimonial home?

A spouse in David’s or Yolanda’s position should be aware that
there are ways to obtain exclusive possession, however, this can be difficult
to achieve.

A spouse can seek a Court Order for “exclusive possession” of
the matrimonial home. However, pursuant to section 24(3), a court must
first consider the following:

    1. the best interests of any child(ren) impacted;
    2. any court orders that are already in place;
    3. both parties’ financial positions;
    4. any written agreement between the parties;
    5. availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and
    6. any violence between spouses or against the children.

A court can make an order to exclude a spouse from the home even if the
other spouse has no legal title to the home. This means that Yolanda is
not at a disadvantage simply because she is not on title for the condo.

It is important to note that neither spouse should attempt to sell, transfer,
or encumber the home without a Court Order or written agreement authorizing
same. Further, neither party should attempt to change the locks as a means
of achieving exclusive possession of the home.

What if one spouse voluntarily vacates the home?

Even if the spouse has voluntarily left the home voluntarily, the remaining
spouse in the home should not change the locks as the spouse who vacated
the home maintains his or her possessory rights.

However, the spouse who vacated the home should provide reasonable notice
to the other spouse before returning to the home. For this reason, it
is not generally advisable for a spouse to vacate the home unless the
spouses cannot safely live in the same home and, in any event; it is best
to seek legal advice before moving out of the matrimonial home.

Ontario residents in Yolanda’s position should keep in mind that they
are not permitted to deny the other spouse all access to the home

It is also important to be aware that there are additional special considerations
if there are children residing in the matrimonial home.

More From the Feldstein Blog

Ontario Family Law, Translated

The statute is dense. The stakes are personal. These articles unpack the parts clients ask about most.

Case Blog

Razavi v. Golzari 2026 ONSC 2686

Background  The parties met in 2013 through mutual family and friends. Around the same time, the husband purchased a home in his sole name. Shortly after the purchase, the wife ... Read more

July 11, 2026 · 8 min read

Feldstein Family Law Group, P.C.

The Law Is Complex.
The First Step Isn't.

Free, confidential consultation with an experienced Ontario family law lawyer. One call can change everything.

Markham · Oakville · Mississauga · Vaughan

Call (905) 415-1636

Responses within one business day — often the same day.

Our Offices

Serving Families Across Ontario & the Greater Toronto Area

Four Feldstein Family Law Group offices across the GTA — close to where our clients live, work, and raise their families.

Markham

20 Crown Steel Dr Suite 8
Markham, ON L3R 9X9, Canada

Map & Directions

Mississauga

3464 Semenyk Ct Suite 213
Mississauga, ON L5C 4P8, Canada

Map & Directions

Vaughan

3865 Major MacKenzie Dr W Suite 107
Vaughan, ON L4H 4P4, Canada

Map & Directions

Oakville

209 Speers Rd Suite 5
Oakville, ON L6K 0H5, Canada

Map & Directions

Communities We Serve

Feldstein Family Law Group represents clients across the Greater Toronto Area — including Toronto, Markham, Oakville, Mississauga, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Unionville, Stouffville, Aurora, Newmarket, Brampton, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Burlington, Milton, Georgetown, Woodbridge, Maple, King City, and the surrounding communities of York Region, Peel Region, Halton Region, and Durham Region.