Category: Uncategorized

“A party in a family law appeal may bring a motion to admit further evidence.  That motion may be brought on the appeal of a variety of proceedings, including the appeal of an arbitration decision.  See Family Law Rules, Rule 38(29) and (46) as well as section 134(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The test for the admission of fresh evidence on an appeal is set out in Palmer, supra as follows:

a)    The evidence should be admitted if it could not have been adduced at trial by due diligence;

b)   The evidence must bear upon a potentially decisive issue in the trial;

c)     The evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and

d)    It must be such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with the other evidence adduced at trial, be expected to have affected the result.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has long accepted that a more flexible approach to fresh evidence is appropriate in cases involving the welfare of children.  See Decaen v. Decaen 2013 ONCA 218 and H.E. v. M.M. 2015 ONCA 813.  The reasons that the Courts adopt this more flexible approach are helpfully summarized in Kurz J.’s decision in Spadacini-Kelvava v. Kelava 2020 ONSC 3277 at paras. 67 and following.

The manner in which this more flexible approach should be applied was outlined by Laskin J.A. in Ojeikere v. Ojeikere 2018 ONCA 372 (at para 48).  The proposed fresh evidence should be admitted if it:

a)    Is credible;

b)    Could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before trial or motion;

c)     Would likely be conclusive of an issue on the appeal.

When these branches of the test are considered, it must be remembered that they are designed to be more flexible than the Palmer test.  Therefore, the elements of the test that are similar to Palmer, such as credibility and whether the evidence would be conclusive of an issue on the appeal, should not be applied more strictly than they would be if the Palmer test was applied.”

         Murakami v. Murakami, 2021 ONSC 1393 (CanLII) at 15-19

“Reliance was placed by both parties on the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 2013 ONSC 5500, regarding the approach to be taken by the court when exercising its discretion in the determination of total income for support purposes.  In that case, Chappel J. observed that:

a.   Retained earnings are the cumulative net earnings of the corporation since the inception of the company less dividends paid out to shareholders since that time. They are the shareholders’ equity in the company, and do not necessarily represent cash in the bank that shareholders can take out as income. [at para. 89]

b.   The purpose of section 18 is “to enable the courts  to conduct a fair accounting of the money available for the payment of child support” and is “designed to address the unfairness which would result if a spouse was to artificially manipulate his income through a corporate structure for the purpose of avoiding child support obligations.” [at para. 88, citing Wildman v. Wildman(2006), 2006 CanLII 33540 (ON CA), 82 O.R. (3d) 401; Koester v. Koester (2003), 2003 CanLII 2150 (ON SC), 50 R.F.L. (5th) 78]

c.   The party proposing that corporate pre-tax income be attributed to the other party has the onus of demonstrating some basis upon which section 18 should be engaged. The fact that retained earnings remain in the corporation does not in and of itself require the party with the interest in the company to justify the business reasons for not withdrawing corporate pre-tax income or retained earnings. Once the party advancing the section 18 argument has met this onus, the party who has the interest in the corporation has the onus of explaining why the decision to add the corporate pre-tax income to the company’s retained earnings rather than withdrawing a portion of the earnings was reasonable from a business perspective. The rationale for this is that the shareowner will in all likelihood have a much greater appreciation of the workings and needs of the company, or will be best able to identify individuals who can be called as witnesses to address the issue.  [at para. 91]

d.   There are a variety of factors that the court can take into consideration in its determination of whether all or a portion of a corporation’s pre-tax income should be included in a spouse’s income, including the historical pattern for retained earnings, the nature of the industry that the corporation is operating in, business plans, level of debts, debt or other restrictions, whether salaries are on par with market, and whether there are legitimate business reasons for retaining earnings in the company, and the payor’s proportionate ownership interest in the company. [at paras. 92-93]

e.   The court must carefully consider “where and how additional money can be found from a corporation’s pre-tax income so as to increase a party’s income for the purpose of support calculations. … [F]ailure to properly understand this issue ‘can lead to an incorrect result and ultimately, if the parent cannot find the expected additional money, may undermine the operation of the corporation and eventually kill the goose that lays the golden egg.’” [at para. 90, citing Bembridge v. Bembridge, 2009 NSSC 158, 73 R.F.L. (6th) 147, at para. 37]

The applicant clearly has the initial onus to demonstrate that s. 18 should be engaged.  She maintains that she has met her onus by the respondent’s concession that some income must be attributed to him from the companies, even to come to the $440,000.00 adjusted income number that he propounds by virtue of inclusions for non-arm’s length salaries and benefits (as s. 18(2) provides for). The fact that he chooses to attribute only income associated with income splitting and benefits does not, according to the applicant, nullify the threshold that has been crossed into the s. 18 Support Guidelines considerations.

The adjusted annual income figure of $440,000.00 calculated by the respondent’s expert does not include pre-tax corporate income.   However, the income valuation report clearly recognizes that there is undistributed pre-tax corporate income in the companies.  The applicant’s initial onus is low and I find it has been met in this case.  Thus, it falls on the respondent to justify why some or all of the pre-tax corporate income should not be attributed to him.

As the court concluded in Thompson, at para. 91: “Once the party advancing the section 18 argument has met this onus, the party who has the interest in the corporation has the onus of explaining why the decision to add the corporate pre-tax income to the company’s retained earnings rather than withdrawing a portion of the earnings was reasonable from a business perspective.”

            Nani v. Nani, 2021 ONSC 1368 (CanLII) at 31-34

“Motions for contempt are remedial in nature. The object of such motions is to compel obedience with a court order rather than punish the offender: Kopaniak v. MacLellan (2002), 2002 CanLII 44919 (ON CA), 27 R.F.L. (5th) 97, (Ont. C.A.), citing Professors Nigel Lowe and Brenda Sufrin in Borrie and Lowe on the Law of Contempt, 3rd ed. (1996) at pp. 655-56.

In Hefkey v. Hefkey, 2013 ONCA 44 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal for Ontario described the following principles that apply to the use of contempt in family law cases:

• • •  The civil contempt remedy is one of last resort.
    •  The “last resort” refers to circumstances where conferences to try to resolve access problems or motions for enforcement have failed.
    •  Contempt findings should not be sought or granted in family law cases where other adequate remedies are available to the allegedly aggrieved party.
    • Great caution must be exercised when considering contempt motions in family law proceedings.

Motions for contempt in family law matters are governed by r. 31 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLR”). Under r. 31(1): “[a]n order, other than a payment order, may be enforced by a contempt motion made in the case in which the order was made, even if another penalty is available.”

While motions for contempt in family law matters are brought in the context of civil matters, they are quasi-criminal in nature. The burden of proof in contempt motions, as in criminal proceedings, is beyond a reasonable doubt. The party alleging contempt carries the burden of proof: Prescott-Russell Services for Children and Adults v. G. (N.) (2006), 2006 CanLII 81792 (ON CA), 82 O.R. (3d) 686 (Ont. C.A.).

The test on a motion for contempt was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carey v. Laiken, cited above. The moving party must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

(1)   the order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done;

(2)   the party alleged to have breached the order must have actual knowledge of it; and

(3)   the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels.

At that point, the court has discretion in dealing with the contempt, particularly if it has been purged.

In Geremia v. Harb, 2007 CanLII 1893 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 305 (S.C.J.), at paras. 23-25, Quinn J. offered some useful definitions. The offence of contempt “consists of the intentional doing of an act which is in fact prohibited by the order. The absence of the contumacious intent is a mitigating but not an exculpatory circumstance” (citing Re Sheppard and Sheppard (1976), 1976 CanLII 710 (ON CA), 12 O.R. (2d) 4 at 8 (Ont. C.A.)). Contempt also includes the intentional refusal to do an act that is required to be done by an order. “Intentional” means “wilful” or “deliberate.”

In two cases released following Carey, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has signalled that courts must be particularly circumspect about making a finding of contempt in family law cases, even if the three-part Carey test is met. That is because the exercise of the court’s discretion as to whether to make a finding of contempt, even when the Carey test is met, is now a fourth, added element of the test.

In Ruffolo v. David, 2019 ONCA 385, at para. 18, the Court of Appeal for Ontario cited the following excerpt from Carey to state that “… contempt orders should not be so readily granted by motion judges”:

The contempt power is discretionary, and courts have consistently discouraged its routine use to obtain compliance with court orders. If contempt is found too easily, “a court’s outrage might be treated as just so much bluster that might ultimately cheapen the role and authority of the very judicial power it seeks to protect.” As this Court has affirmed, “contempt of court cannot be reduced to a mere means of enforcing judgments.” Rather, it should be used “cautiously and with great restraint”. It is an enforcement power of last rather than first resort.

[Citations omitted.]

The court added at para. 19 that “where the main issues to be decided concern access to children, the best interests of the children should be the paramount consideration.” In other words, a court considering a family law contempt motion involving the parenting of children, which often involves access denial, must consider the children’s best interests and how a finding of contempt would affect them.

In Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799, the Court of Appeal for Ontario explicitly stated that meeting the three-part Carey test is not sufficient to make a finding of contempt. The court must consider the added fourth part of the test: whether to exercise its discretion to decline to make a finding of contempt. That fourth part of the test is “the last crucial step” that must be present in the motion court’s analysis.

The court in Chong pointed to the understanding, cited above, that a contempt finding is a last resort.  Before making a contempt finding, the court should consider alternatives to such a finding. Although the Court of Appeal did not specifically refer to it, many of those alternatives are found in r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules. That subrule sets out various remedies short of contempt for a failure to obey a court order

Hearsay regarding a contentious issue is not admissible in a contempt motion. It is true that under r. 31(3), the supporting affidavit in a contempt motion “may contain statements of information that the person signing the affidavit learned from someone else, but only if the requirements of subrule 14 (19) are satisfied”. But under r. 14(19)(b), if the motion is a r. 31 contempt motion, the hearsay information is only admissible if it is “not likely to be disputed”.”

         Dephoure v. Dephoure, 2021 ONSC 1370 (CanLII) at 120-132

“As I noted in Gibbons v. Mulock, considerable deference is due to a domestic contract.  In Rosen v. Rosen, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained the rationale for this principle, at p. 644.

I start with the proposition that it is desirable that the parties should settle their own affairs if possible.  I think that they are more likely to accept their own solution to their problem than one imposed upon them.  A more pedestrian reason for encouraging parties to settle their own affairs is that the courts may simply be incapable of dealing with the ever-increasing mass of matrimonial disputes.

It is, I think, obvious that the settlement of matrimonial disputes can only be encouraged if the parties can expect that the terms of such settlement will be binding and will be recognized by the courts.  In my respectful view, as a general rule in the determination of what is fit and just, courts should enforce the agreement arrived at between the parties.

In LeVan v. LeVan, another decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the court dealt with a challenge to a marriage contract involving section 56(4) of the Act.

[50] Section 56 (4) of the FLA was designed to address and codify prior concerns maintained by courts that both parties fully understood their rights under the law when contracting with their spouses.  It has been characterized as the “judicial oversight” provision of marriage agreements: Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2004 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 550, [2004] S.C.J. No. 20, at para. 14.  The provision is of such significance that, in accordance with s. 56 (7), it cannot be waived by the parties.

[51] The analysis undertaken under s. 56(4) is essentially comprised of a two-part process: Demchuk v. Demchuk, 1986 CanLII 6295 (ON SC), [1986] O.J. No. 1500, 1 R.F.L. (3d) 176 (H.C.J.).  First, the court must consider whether the party seeking to set aside the agreement can demonstrate that one or more of the circumstances set out within the provision have been engaged.  Once that hurdle has been overcome, the court must then consider whether it is appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of setting aside the agreement…

The husband bears the onus of persuading the court that one or more of the subsections of section 56(4) apply and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the marriage contract.  In guiding the exercise of that discretion, there is no exhaustive set of factors but the following have been consistently considered, as first identified in Demchuk:

(a)  whether there had been concealment of the asset or material misrepresentation;

(b)  whether there had been duress, or unconscionable circumstances;

(c)  whether the petitioning party neglected to pursue full legal disclosures;

(d)  whether he/she moved expeditiously to have the agreement set aside;

(e)  whether he/she received substantial benefits under the agreement;

(f)  whether the other party had fulfilled his/her obligations under the agreement; and

(g) whether the non-disclosure was a material inducement to the aggrieved party entering into the agreement.”

         Reynolds v. McCormack, 2020 ONSC 999 (CanLII) at 54-56

“The appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in his analysis when he failed to consider the amendments to the Divorce Act which will come into force on March 1, 2021 and will include s. 16.92(2). The provision, once amended, will read as follows:

16.92(2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.

While this provision was not in force at the time of the trial, and is not yet in force, it is a fair submission by the appellant that s. 16.92(2) reflects Parliament’s view about the court’s approach to the moving parent’s intentions when considering the best interests of the child.

The Government of Canada website provides the following explanation for the s. 16.92(2) amendment:

Parents seeking to relocate with their children are sometimes required to answer in court the difficult question of whether or not they would proceed with a relocation if they were not permitted to bring their children. A response of “I won’t relocate without my child” may be interpreted as evidence that the proposed relocation is not sufficiently important and should not be permitted. A response of “I would relocate without my child” may be interpreted as evidence that the parent is not sufficiently devoted to the child.

This provision would prohibit courts from considering this question — or the parent’s response — if raised in the context of the court proceedings. This will assist in focusing on the specific legal issue before the court.

Parliament’s explanation of s. 16.92(2) reflects the “classic double bind” that has been recognized in the jurisprudence for many years. When the parent who wants to move with the children is asked whether they will stay in their current location should the mobility order not be made, the parent is immediately placed in a “lose-lose” situation. If they answer that they would stay with the children, it allows the court to fall back on the status quo and force the parent to remain when that result may not be in the best interests of the child. By contrast, if the parent says that they would go regardless, it allows the court to draw an adverse inference about that parent’s dedication to the children. The problematic double bind has led the courts to repeatedly discourage judges from relying on a parent’s representations about whether they will or will not move without the children: see, for example, Spencer v. Spencer, [2005] A.J. No. 934, 2005 ABCA 262, 371 A.R. 78, at para. 18; Hopkins v. Hopkins, [2011] A.J. No. 1413, 2011 ABCA 372, at para. 6; and Hejzlar, at paras. 24-27.”

         Bourke v. Davis, 2021 ONCA 97 (CanLII) at 43-46

“The court has an inherent jurisdiction to backdate an order, recognized by the doctrine of nunc pro tunc, Latin for “now for then”.  Whether a court exercises this jurisdiction is based on fairness and the interests of justice.  Typically, nunc pro tunc orders are used to relieve prejudice that results to the party seeking the order from delays that occur that are beyond the control of the party.  They are most often seen in the context of backdating orders so that a limitation period does not unfairly bar a claim if the party has acted prior to the expiration of the limitation period but been unable to secure an order in time due to no fault of its own.

In Hogarth v. Hogarth, 1945 CanLII 396 (ONSC), [1945] O.W.N. 448, Kelly J., at p.449 stated as follows:

There is inherent jurisdiction in the Court to make orders nunc pro tunc to validate proceedings which have been carried out and have been found ineffective by reason of some slip or oversight having been made in the conduct of such proceedings, and to ensure against some injustice resulting therefrom.

On my review of cases in which nunc pro tunc orders have been granted, the doctrine has been relied upon primarily to remedy procedural defects.  I am unaware of any cases in which the doctrine has been used to backdate an order for custody, as requested in this situation.  As noted, counsel for the applicants did not provide me with any cases on this issue.”

         Diehl et al v. Wierenga, 2021 ONSC 1170 (CanLII) at 22-24

“To conclude, federal legislation does not clothe the (Pension Benefits Division Act) administrator with the power to split pension payments as a method of dividing family property. Consequently, the administrator cannot be ordered to do so. Parliament could create such a power. It has chosen not to. Indeed, in the recent case of Francis, the federal Crown successfully argued that there is no jurisdiction to order the administrator to divide pension payments as family property under the PBDA. I agree with the analysis in that decision.

Part I of the (Family Law Act) addresses issues of family property. Section 5 creates a prima facie entitlement to an equal division of net family property. Section 9 empowers a court to order equalization payments, and to make collateral orders to secure their performance.

The interest of one spouse in another’s pension benefits has long been recognized as a matter of matrimonial or family property: see Clarke, at p. 824. In 2009, the FLA was amended (s. 2009, c. 11) to create specific rules, contained in s. 10.1, about the division of pension entitlements. Subsections 10.1(3), (4), and (5) provide:

(3) An order made under section 9 or 10 may provide for the immediate transfer of a lump sum out of a pension plan but, except as permitted under subsection (5), not for any other division of a spouse’s interest in the plan.

(4) In determining whether to order the immediate transfer of a lump sum out of a pension plan and in determining the amount to be transferred, the court may consider the following matters and such other matters as the court considers appropriate:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. The nature of the assets available to each spouse at the time of the hearing.
                  2. The proportion of a spouse’s net family property that consists of the imputed value, for family law purposes, of his or her interest in the pension plan.
                  3. The liquidity of the lump sum in the hands of the spouse to whom it would be transferred.
                  4. Any contingent tax liabilities in respect of the lump sum that would be transferred.
                  5. The resources available to each spouse to meet his or her needs in retirement and the desirability of maintaining those resources.

(5) If payment of the first instalment of a spouse’s pension under a pension plan is due on or before the valuation date, an order made under section 9 or 10 may provide for the division of pension payments but not for any other division of the spouse’s interest in the plan. [Emphasis added.]

…

A broader interpretation s. 10.1(5) of the FLA is more compatible with the PBDA. Returning to the paramountcy jurisprudence, Gascon J. said in Moloney, at para. 27: “It is presumed that Parliament intends its laws to co-exist with provincial laws.” This presumption must also apply in reverse, and with at least equal force – it is presumed that the province intends its laws to co-exist with federal laws. I am unable to find that the Legislature intended to undermine or limit the operation of the PBDA.

When Ontario amended the FLA in 2009 to create s. 10.1, it would surely have known that the PBDA only provides for a lump-sum division: see Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Pensions as Family Property, at pp. 62, 171-172. See also, Law Commission of Ontario, Division of Pensions Upon Marriage Breakdown – Final Report (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, 2008). As noted in para. 18 above, the PBDA applies to pensions created by many federal statutes, no doubt affecting the pensions of countless Ontarians. I would avoid an interpretation of the FLA that frustrates the PBDA. A broader interpretation of s. 10.1(5) advances the goals of the FLA, while achieving harmony with federal pension legislation.

This is not say that it will always be appropriate to order a lump-sum division of a pension in pay. It will depend on the nature of the underlying pension legislation, the application of the criteria listed in s. 10.1(4) of the FLA, and “such other matters as the court considers appropriate” to achieve a just result in the case: see VanderWal v. VanderWal, 2015 ONSC 384, 54 R.F.L. (7th) 410, at para. 9.”

         Fawcett v. Fawcett, 2018 ONCA 150 (CanLII) at 27-29, 34-36

“The importance of hearing, and placing appropriate weight on, the views of the child is a critical development in family law.  Article 12 of the Child Convention provides:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
            2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Hearing the child’s views and preferences and incorporating those views in judicial decision-making about matters affecting a child’s best interests dovetails with section 24(2)(b) of the CLRA.  It is important to recognize the agency of children, and where possible, to hear their voice before making custody and access decisions which have a profound effect on the life of a child.

The benefits to judicial decision-making of hearing a child’s voice were set out by Martinson J. in G. (B.J.) v. G. (D.L.), 2010 YKSC 44 as follows at paras. 21-22:

[21] Obtaining information of all sorts from children, including younger children, on a wide range of topics relevant to the dispute, can lead to better decisions for children that have a greater chance of working successfully.  They have important information to offer about such things as schedules, including time spent with each parent, that work for them, extra-curricular activities and lessons, vacations, schools, and exchanges between their two homes and how these work best.  They can also speak about what their life is like from their point of view, including the impact of the separation on them as well as the impact of the conduct of their parents.

[22] Receiving children’s input early in the process, and throughout as appropriate, can reduce conflict by focusing or refocusing matters on the children and what is important to them.  It can reduce the intensity and duration of the conflict and enhance conciliation between parents so that they can communicate more effectively for the benefit of their child.  When children are actively involved in problem solving and given recognition that their ideas are important and are being heard, they are empowered and their confidence and self-esteem grow.  They feel that they have been treated with dignity.  In addition, children’s participation in the decision-making process correlates positively with their ability to adapt to a newly reconfigured family.”

         J.J.S. v. P.P., 2020 ONSC 1038 (CanLII) at 31-33

“Marriages are like balloons. Sometimes they deflate immediately with a single puncture. But often the air escapes slowly as one or both parties withdraw physically, emotionally and financially. In these latter situations, separation is a process rather than an event, and it is difficult to assign a single date as the “date of separation”. Nevertheless, the law requires that a date be chosen for the purposes of valuation and equalization of net family property.”

         Cheng v. Sze, 2020 ONSC 937 (CanLII) at 3

“There is clear jurisdiction under the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.4 to order the sale of jointly owned property prior to trial. However, an order for directing the sale of a matrimonial home before trial should only be made where, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to do so. Additionally, an application for partition and sale should not proceed where it would prejudice the rights of either spouse under the Family Law Act (Martin v. Martin, 1992 CanLII 7402 (ON CA); Silva v. Silva, 1990 CanLII 6718 (ON CA)).

In this case, 153 Bandelier Way is neither a jointly owned property nor is it the matrimonial home. Nevertheless, Ms. Vo seeks an order for the sale of the Bandelier property based on her 50% interest arising from the Trust Agreement entered into the parties on August 28, 2018, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “K” to Ms. Vo’s affidavit sworn on October 13, 2020.

The “Acknowledgement of Trust” provides that the transferee of 153 Bandelier Way, Mr. Tran, is holding the property in trust for the beneficial owners, Minh Thein Tran (50%) and Kim Vo (50%). Handwritten next to the named beneficiaries are the words “AS JOINT TENANTS”, however, this addition is not initialed by the parties. The Acknowledgement nevertheless goes on to state:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1.  I hereby acknowledge and confirm that the interest in the said lands is held for and solely on behalf of the beneficiaries.
            2.  I covenant and agree not to do any act or thing, or institute any action or proceedings of any nature, without having first obtained the consent and authorization of the beneficiaries herein.
            3.  This Acknowledgement of Trust shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assignees of the beneficiaries and myself.

The parties acknowledged on the document that they waived independent legal advice, understand their respective rights and obligations, understand the nature and effect of the agreement, understand that the provisions of it are equitable and are signing voluntarily. The document is signed by both parties, whose signatures are witnessed.

Although Mr. Tran has requested an order in his Notice of Cross-Motion “declaring that the real property owned by the Respondent being 153 Bandelier Way, Kanata, Ontario, belongs solely to the Respondent and removing the Trust Agreement signed by the parties at the time of purchasing the real property, being legally described as Part Block 260, Plan 4M1597, Part 4 on Plan 4R-31308”, he does not provide any evidence to the court in relation thereto, nor has he provided any legal argument to support his request for this relief. To “remove” or essentially set aside the trust agreement, which Mr. Tran acknowledged was voluntarily entered into, would require both evidence as to why it should be set aside, and some basis in law to do so. Having neither, I dismiss Mr. Tran’s request for such a declaratory order.

Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.4 provide, under the title “Who may be compelled to make partition or sale”:

2 All joint tenants, tenants in common, and coparceners, all doweresses, and parties entitled to dower, tenants by the curtesy, mortgagees or other creditors having liens on, and all parties interested in, to or out of any land in Ontario, may be compelled to make or suffer partition or sale of the land, or any part thereof, whether the estate is legal and equitable or equitable only.

3(1) Any person interested in land in Ontario, or the guardian of a minor entitled to the immediate possession of an estate therein, may bring an action or make an application for the partition of such land or for the sale thereof under the directions of the court if such sale is considered by the court to be more advantageous to the parties interested.

By virtue of the Acknowledgement of Trust dated August 28, 2018, Ms. Vo is most definitely a “person interested in” 153 Bandelier Way, and is a person who, by virtue of that interest, has the ability to bring an application to the court to have the property listed for sale.”

            Vo v. Tran, 2021 ONSC 1075 (CanLII) at 29-35