“In Brienza v. Brienza, 2014 ONSC 6942 (CanLII), Justice Perell indicated at paragraphs 22 through 25:
[22] Section 2 of the Partition Act states that a joint tenant or tenant in common may be compelled to make or suffer partition or sale. The general principles to determine when partition and sale should be granted were laid down in Davis v. Davis, 1953 CanLII 148 (ON CA), [1954] O.R. 23 (C.A.), where the Court of Appeal stated:
There continues to be a prima facie right of a joint tenant to partition of sale of lands. There is a corresponding obligation on a joint tenant to permit partition or sale, and finally the Court should compel such partition or sale if no sufficient reason appears why such an order should not be made.
[23] The onus is on the party resisting partition or sale to demonstrate sufficient reasons for refusal: Davis v. Davis, supra; Silva v. Bettencourt, [2002] O.J. No. 1878 (S.C.J.).
[24] In cases after Davis, the Act has been interpreted to mean that the court has a very limited discretion to refuse an application for partition or sale: Silva v. Silva, 1990 CanLII 6718 (ON CA), [1990] O.J. No. 2183, supra; Hay v. Gooderham (1979), 1979 CanLII 1690 (ON SC), 24 O.R. (2d) 701 (Div. Ct.); Garfella Apartments Inc. v. Chouduri, 2010 ONSC 3413 (CanLII), [2010] O.J. No. 2900 (Div. Ct.).
[25] Only in exceptional circumstances will a joint tenant or tenant in common be denied his or her request that the property be partitioned or sold. The court’s discretion to refuse partition and sale is narrow, and there must be malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct to justify the refusal to grant partition and sale: Silva v. Silva, supra; Osborne v. Myette, [2004] O.J. No. 3383 (S.C.J.); Latcham v. Latcham, 2002 CanLII 44960 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2126 (C.A.), affg. [2001] O.J. No. 5291 (Div. Ct.); Fellows v. Lunkenheimer (1998), 21 R.P.R. (3d) 142 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Kalita v. Freskiw Estate, [1998] O. J. No 5180 (Gen Div.); Jakubiszyn v. Tekielak, [1991] O.J. No. 2362 (Gen. Div.); Garfella Apartments Inc. v. Chouduri, supra.
“No sufficient reason as to why such an order should not be made” has been provided in this case. Thus, there shall be an order for the sale of 153 Bandelier Way.”