“Counsel for the wife referred me to the case of Ganie v. Ganie, 2019 ONSC 1128, in which Justice L. Shaw summarized the principles applicable to claims for occupation rent. At para. 287 and 288, the court stated:
287 In Griffiths v. Zambosco (2001), 2001 CanLII 24097 (ON CA), 54 O.R. (3d) 397 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 49-50, Osborne J.A. held that a judge has jurisdiction to order that occupation rent be paid if it is reasonable and equitable to do so. The relevant factors to be considered will vary from case to case. However, in a family law context, some factors are consistently taken into account such as: (a) the timing of the claim for occupation rent; (b) the duration of the occupancy; (c) the inability of the non-resident spouse to realize on his or her equity in the property; (d) any reasonable credits to be set off against occupation rent; and (e) any other competing claims in the litigation. The weight to be given to these and other relevant factors is a matter for the judge to determine.
288 In Higgins v. Higgins (2001), 2001 CanLII 28223 (ON SC), 19 R.F.L. (5th) 300 (Ont. S.C.J.), Quinn J., after reviewing the jurisprudence, stated at para. 53, that the following factors must be considered in making an order for occupation rent:
(a) the conduct of the non-occupying spouse, including the failure to pay support;
(b) the conduct of the occupying spouse, including the failure to pay support;
(c) delay in making the claim;
(d) the extent to which the non-occupying spouse has been prevented from having access to his or her equity in the home;
(e) whether the non-occupying spouse moved for the sale of the home and, if not, why not;
(f) whether the occupying spouse paid the mortgage and other carrying charges of the home;
(g) whether children resided with the occupying spouse and, if so, whether the non-occupying spouse paid, or was able to pay, child support;
(h) whether the occupying spouse has increased the selling value of the property; and
(i) ouster is not required.”