Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Courts may defer partition and sale under the Partition Act in family disputes until ownership and equalization issues are settled.

• Beneficial ownership of the property is disputed, with resulting trust and unjust enrichment claims pending.

• The wife’s inconsistent claims to both 90% and 50% ownership, coupled with no draft Net Family Property statements, undermined the motion.

• No proof of unsustainable carrying costs or urgent hardship; tenant rents help offset expenses.

• Only the increase in value between marriage and separation is subject to equalization; evidence on valuations and deductions was incomplete.

• Motion for partition and sale dismissed without prejudice; settlement conference set; costs submissions timetable ordered.

Facts

Prathesh Senthilvadivel (husband) and Rajivi Ranjithan (wife) purchased the Richmond Hill property at 302 Demaine Crescent on January 20, 2020, for $778,000, with title registered as tenants in common—90% to the wife and 10% to the husband. The wife initially sought the sale of this and another jointly owned condo, but the parties agreed to sell the condo, leaving only the Demaine property in dispute. The husband asserts that legal title does not reflect beneficial ownership; he claims to have funded the $218,000 down payment and closing costs, partly with funds from his father, and that the 90/10 split was to enable the wife to claim first-time buyer credits. The wife claims she contributed $62,739.73 in early 2019 and additional sums before and after the purchase, including mortgage contributions, which the husband disputes. After purchase, the husband lived in the property alone until the wife moved in during the COVID-19 pandemic, with her brother also residing there temporarily. They lived there together until October 2022, then moved to Scarborough, renting the property to tenants from November 2022 onward. They married on November 21, 2020, separated on January 14, 2024, and have a 2.5-year-old child.

Legal framework

Under section 2(1) of Ontario’s Partition Act, a joint or common owner has a prima facie right to partition and sale, but in family law contexts, courts may delay such orders to avoid prejudicing unresolved ownership or equalization claims. The Family Law Act allows a date-of-marriage deduction for property owned at marriage but not a matrimonial home at separation, so only the increase in value between marriage and separation is equalized. In Rawluk v. Rawluk, the Supreme Court held that ownership must be determined before equalization.

Analysis

The husband opposed sale, citing prejudice to his ownership and trust claims. The court found that prejudice could be avoided if sale proceeds were held in trust, but no reliable evidence supported releasing funds now. The wife’s positions were inconsistent—claiming both 90% and 50% ownership—and no draft Net Family Property statements were filed. Without these, the court could not determine potential equalization payments or whether a sale was inevitable at trial. The record did not show that monthly carrying costs were unsustainable; tenant rents helped cover expenses. The husband’s appraisals indicated a $185,000 increase in property value between marriage and separation, but details on mortgage balances, tax implications, and other deductions were missing. Ownership and equitable claims remained undeveloped, with no questioning conducted.

Outcome and orders

Justice M. Kraft dismissed the wife’s motion for partition and sale without prejudice, allowing her to return only after full financial disclosure and Net Family Property statements are filed. A settlement conference was scheduled for January 16, 2026, and a timetable set for costs submissions.