Categories
Residential Real Estate Uncategorized

No Right of First Refusal in the Sale of a Matrimonial Home

In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the court reiterated the principle that spouses may not be granted a right of first refusal in a matrimonial home.

A right of first refusal in real estate is a mechanism that gives a party the right to be the first allowed to purchase a particular property if it is offered for sale. 

What Happened?

The husband and wife separated and went to trial to resolve the ensuing financial issues. After a four-day trial, the trial judge ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization payment of $226,670. 

Additionally, the trial judge ordered that, after a fair market value assessment, the husband had the “right to conclude the purchase” of the wife’s interest in the jointly-owned matrimonial home within 30 days, and to obtain the release of the wife from her obligations under the existing first mortgage registered against the matrimonial home.

Parties’ Positions

The wife appealed and asked the Court of Appeal to vary the trial judge’s order to omit the husband’s right to conclude the purchase of the matrimonial home. She sought the sale of the matrimonial home and the division of its net proceeds.

The husband contested the appeal, first, because he argued that the appeal should instead be heard by the Divisional Court and that it was on the trial judge to explain his order. Also, the husband wanted to purchase the wife’s interest in the matrimonial home. Finally, he stated that he had been required to live in a trailer while the matrimonial home sat vacant as the wife was living with her mother; the husband sought compensation for his resulting expenses and hardship.

Court of Appeal Decision

After dismissing the husband’s procedural objections, the court stated that the case raised a single issue: the arrangements for selling the matrimonial home. 

The court explained that a right of first refusal is a substantive right that has economic value. It cited previous case law which has established that, absent consent between the parties, one spouse does not have a special right to purchase the matrimonial home and that once the matrimonial home is ordered to be sold, each spouse is entitled to receive fair market value for his or her interest in it. In the cited 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal had previously stated:

“A right of first refusal will most often work to discourage other interested buyers. If a spouse is granted a right of first refusal, the effect of it is to remove that spouse from the competitive market for the matrimonial home. The existence of a right of first refusal distorts the market, because it provides a benefit to one party, which eliminates the need for that party to compete with any other interested purchaser. Finally, if the spouse with a right of first refusal is in possession, the existence of the right of first refusal will provide a disincentive to maintaining the property, so as to increase its value and saleability.”

Consequently, the court explained that a right of first refusal falls outside the boundaries of what is ancillary or what is reasonably necessary to implement the order for sale of the matrimonial home. It distorts the market for the sale of the matrimonial home by eliminating the need to compete against any other prospective purchaser, thus potentially reducing the amount the joint owning spouse realizes on the sale.

The court found that, in the absence of consent, the right of first refusal should not have been granted by the trial judge in this case. It stated that if the husband wanted to purchase the matrimonial home, he would have to compete with any other interested purchaser.

As a result, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that the matrimonial home could be listed for sale immediately by the wife.

Get Advice

Baker & Company has adopted all of the COVID-19 safety precautions and vulnerable employees have been invited to work from home. We are fully operational and continuing to work on client assignments. Where possible, meetings are being held via video link or by telephone conference.

Baker & Company’s lawyers have a reputation for closing residential purchase, sale and refinance transactions smoothly and without surprises. Whether you are buying or selling your home, cottage, investment property or vacant land, we can assist you from the beginning to the end of your transaction. We represent individuals and families in all kinds of real estate matters. We act diligently to ensure you have a positive and stress-free experience.

At Baker & Company in Toronto, we take the time to meet with you and understand your unique needs in order to guide you through your next residential real estate transaction.  We rely on our broad base of experience and expertise to provide exceptional legal advice and risk management. Call us at 416-777-0100 or contact us online for a consultation.

Categories
Family Law Second Marriage Issues Support Claims

The Rights & Obligations of Step-Parents in Ontario

When it comes to divorce and child access or support issues, one’s mind most commonly turns to the legal parents of the child. However, what about situations where a parent re-marries and their new spouse forms a close bond with the child(ren) of a previous relationship? In many step-parent/step-child relationships, serious bonds can form, and resemble that of parent and child. If that second marriage were to end in the future, does the step-parent have any claims on access to the child? For that matter, do they have any obligations to the child in terms of support? Below, we look at the current state of the law in Ontario with respect to the rights and obligations of step-parents after a divorce or separation.

Step-Parents and Child Support

Under Ontario law, it is possible that a step-parent will be found to be responsible for child support if they were married to or in a common-law relationship with one fo the child’s parents. The more the relationship resembles a parent/child relationship, the more likely this is to occur. In determining this, courts will examine a number of factors, including:

  • How does the child feel about their relationship with the step-parent?
  • Does the child take part in the extended family in the same way as a biological child?
  • Does the step-parent provide financially for the child to the best of their ability?
  • Does the step-parent discipline the child?
  • Does the step-parent talk about themselves as a responsible parent to the child, the family, and the larger community?
  • What relationship does the child have with their absent biological parent?

Even if one biological or adoptive parent to the child is already paying support from the previous relationship, it is still possible for the step=parent to be held responsible for additional support. However, unlike a parent, a step-parent’s obligation may not be determined by the federal Child Support Guidelines, which calculate support obligations based on income and other factors. A step-parent’s support may be supplementary, and therefore not quantified in the same way a parent’s support would be.

Step-Parents and Access Rights

Some people may not be aware that any individual with an interest in preserving access to a child can apply for it; it is not limited to parents. This includes grandparents, aunts, uncles and step-parents. As with any access application, the primary consideration will be the best interests of the child.

As demonstrated in a 2018 Ontario decision, even in a situation where both biological parents of a child have chosen to prohibit access by a step-parent, the court may intervene on the child’s behalf. In the case at hand, the child’s parents had divorced, and the father remarried. He was married to his second wife, the child’s step-mother, for seven years. During the course of that time, the step-mother and child bonded significantly. After the second marriage ended in divorce, both biological parents united in their desire to keep the step-mother from seeing their son.

After only being permitted to see her step-son four times in two years, the step-mother brought an application for access. The court considered the best interests of the child in light of the following:

  1. The child loved the stepmother and the stepmother loved the child.
  2. The child viewed the stepmother as a parent and the stepmother treated the child as her own child.
  3. The child had an important relationship with the stepmother that needed to be preserved and fostered.
  4. Access with the stepmother would ensure that the child could have important relationships with his sister, friends and extended family members.
  5. The court was satisfied that the stepmother would act responsibly in parenting the child.

The court granted the step-mother access of one weekend per month and stressed the importance that the child be allowed to enjoy relationships that were important to him.

As this case shows, even when both parents are opposed to contact between their child and a third party, the courts will intervene when the contact is in the child’s best interests. As stated above, the bond between step-parent and child can be powerful, and just like it would be harmful to keep a child from a loving parent, the same can be said about a loving step-parent.

At Baker & Companyour family law lawyers are committed to minimizing as much stress as possible for clients involved in a high-conflict divorce or separation or other family law dispute. We will help you understand what you can expect, help you communicate with your ex-spouse, put agreements into place to prevent future disputes from arising, and, above all, represent your best interests. Call us at 416-777-0100 or contact us online for a consultation.