BACKGROUND
The parties began cohabitating in or about 1997 and were in a common-law relationship for approximately 26 years. Both parties were licensed medical doctors and retired together for five years until they separated in 2023. There are no children of the relationship, but both parties have children from previous relationships.
In 2006, the parties purchased a property as “joint tenants”, which was understood to grant each party the right of survivorship. Ms. Frank now seeks to list the property for sale and claims spousal support. In contrast, Mr. Martin seeks a declaration that Ms. Frank holds her interest in the property in trust for him and that the joint property should vest in him. He argues that his disproportionate financial contributions to the property unjustly enriched Ms. Frank, citing payments he made for a bridge financing loan, closing costs, a larger down payment, mortgage loan installments, property taxes, and home insurance. If granted, this claim would prevent Ms. Frank from selling the property and would reduce her interest, if any, in it.
THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Trusts in a Spousal Relationship
In cases where unmarried partners dispute property ownership, courts often consider the principles of resulting trust and unjust enrichment. A resulting trust applies when one person holds property on behalf of another, typically in situations where no payment or valid reason for the transfer exists. The law presumes that financial contributions are not gifts unless proven otherwise. However, in certain family relationships—such as between spouses or parents and children—the presumption may be reversed, meaning a gift is assumed unless evidence suggests otherwise.
Unjust enrichment applies when one partner unfairly benefits at the other’s expense. The law does not automatically assume that wealth accumulated during a relationship should be shared equally. Instead, courts examine factors such as financial contributions, domestic services, shared financial planning, and the couple’s overall economic integration. If one partner contributed significantly—whether financially or non-financially—and the other disproportionately benefited, a legal remedy may be available. However, a claim for unjust enrichment requires proof that the financial imbalance was not intended as a gift and that there is no legal justification for the enrichment.
In this case, the court found that while Mr. Martin contributing more financially to the purchase and upkeep of the property, there was no evidence that these contributions were intended as a gift or that the parties ever agreed to an unequal ownership arrangement. Ms. Frank provided significant non-financial contributions, including household management and renovations. Their long-term relationship, joint financial decisions, and shared mortgage also reinforced equal ownership. Additionally, Mr. Martin only claimed an unequal share after litigation began. Ultimately, the court rejected the unjust enrichment claim and declined to impose a resulting trust, ruling that the property should remain jointly owned.
Joint property is to be listed for sale
Under the Partition Act, a joint tenant has a presumptive right to the sale of property, and the court has limited discretion to deny this right unless the resisting party demonstrates malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct.
In this case, the court found Mr. Martin's objection to the sale—based on his claim that a forced sale would cause him oppressive hardship by requiring him to leave the home he loves—insufficient to override the right to sell. This was particularly true given that Mr. Martin has the financial resources to secure alternative housing.
The court ordered the property to be listed for sale on the open market. While Mr. Martin's consent to the sale was dispensed with, both parties were expected to cooperate in the process. The court also declined to grant a right of first refusal, which would have given one party the opportunity to purchase the property before it was sold to others. However, the court allowed either party to purchase the property at fair market value.
Spousal Support
The court considered both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds for spousal support. It found no prima facie compensatory claim arising from Ms. Frank’s inability to pursue her first residency choice, as this had no impact on her income or pension. However, the court recognized a prima facie non-compensatory entitlement, emphasizing that marriage is a joint endeavor and a socio-economic partnership.
In long-term relationships, the purpose of spousal support is to help maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the relationship. Given Ms. Frank’s economic disadvantage post-separation, the duration of the relationship, and Mr. Martin’s financial capacity, the court concluded that she had established a valid basis for interim spousal support.
The court considered the factors outlined in Section 33(9) of the Family Law Act when determining the amount and duration of spousal support in this case. These factors include the length of cohabitation, the impact of responsibilities assumed during the relationship on earning capacity, and the extent to which domestic services were performed in place of paid work.
The court rejected Mr. Martin’s argument that Ms. Frank should be self-sufficient, clarifying that self-sufficiency refers to the ability to maintain a reasonable standard of living, assessed in the context of the parties' economic partnership during cohabitation. Given Ms. Frank’s reduced standard of living, her age, and her inability to practice medicine, the court found that she was not self-sufficient.
Considering Mr. Martin’s financial capacity, the court ordered him to pay Ms. Frank $6,029 per month in interim spousal support.