Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin

Occupation Rent

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Occupation Rent

Posted June 11, 2018

After separation, if one spouse remains living in a jointly owned property or matrimonial home for some period of time, while the other spouse pays rent elsewhere, should the occupying spouse pay some amount of money in rent to the one who has decamped?

The right to occupation rent may be grounded in section 24(c) of the Family Law Act for married spouses where the spouse remaining in the home has a court order for exclusive possession, or on the basis of the common law and the discretion of the court. The mere fact that one spouse remained in the property after separation does not guarantee success on this type of claim.

Facts and factors matter in occupation rent claims. The courts will look to the conduct of both spouses (including any failure to pay support), the duration of sole occupancy, the ability (or inability) of the non-occupying spouse to access his or her equity in the property, competing claims in the litigation, and amounts that the occupying spouse has paid towards the mortgage or other costs of the house.

The court will also look to factors such as whether the occupying spouse failed to keep the property in good condition (thus potentially reducing the value of the property between separation and sale), and whether the non-occupying spouse was required to leave because of domestic violence charges.

Overall the court must examine whether it is reasonable and equitable to order occupation rent, given all the facts of a given case. It is the job of the non-occupying spouse to convince a court that occupation rent should be ordered.

The case law in this area confirms that even if occupation rent is ordered, the quantum may be far less than 50% of fair market rent for a variety of reasons, including the separation itself taking the occupying spouse by surprise (see: Erb v. Erb, [2003] O.J. No. 1527, at paragraphs 71 – 78).

Whatever stage of a separation one is at, this issue should be given due consideration, ideally within the wider context of the shared responsibility for ongoing expenses from the date of separation until a final settlement or trial.

This blog post was written by Jenny Johnston, a member of our Family Law team.  She can be reached at 613-566-2081 or at jenny.johnston@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Generally, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) has been interpreted to protect non-unionized employees from “temporary” lay offs unless their employment contract permits such a[...]
Blog |
Business Law

By: 

Posted October 20, 2021

On October 19, 2021, the new Ontario Business Registry System launched. This new online registry now enables businesses and not-for-profit corporations to directly access services[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law

By: 

Posted October 14, 2021

In the decision of Greenpeace Canada (2471256 Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks), 2021 ONSC 4521, released September 3, 2021,[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted October 1, 2021

This blog continues our exploration of the potential employment law consequences stemming from the degree of control a party exerts within a variety of business[...]
Blog |
Personal Injury

By: 

Posted September 27, 2021

Personal Injury lawyers and their clients are all too familiar with the carnage and suffering caused by impaired drivers.  Canada has the worst rate of[...]
Blog |
Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Business Law

By: 

Posted September 24, 2021

As is noted by the Court of Appeal in McEwen (Re), released August 12, 2021, referred to here as “Traders”, the BIA is a complete[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.