Matrimonial Home Interest

If a person makes a greater contribution to the purchase of a Matrimonial Home, does this mean they are entitled to a greater interest in the home? 

In the summer of 2011, the parties each sold their respective homes. In October, 2011, they purchased a home and began residing together in it. This home became the matrimonial home when they married. The price was $1,125,000. Mr. Black contributed $503,564 and Ms. White contributed $264,490. The home was registered in joint tenancy.

Ms. White and Mr. Black hold equal interests in the matrimonial home, regardless of their unequal contributions to the purchase price. Both the general law of joint tenancy and Ontario matrimonial property statute law lead to that conclusion.

Equality of interest between joint tenants is a basic principle of real estate law. See Bendix v. Jonas, 1982 CarswellOnt 680, 457, 27 R.P.R. 163 (H.C.J.) at para. 23:

….A joint tenancy necessarily involves an equality of interest between the joint tenants. That equality of interest is not affected nor altered by the amount of work nor by the amount of money contributions made by the parties. The equality of interest as joint tenants is a basic principle of real estate law. The mere fact of the tenancy being a joint tenancy has a distinct legal effect.…

The Family Law Act, like the Family Law Reform Act that was in force when Bendix v. Jonas was decided, gives prima facie effect to a joint tenancy between spouses. Paragraph 14(a) reads:

(a) the fact that property is held in the name of spouses as joint tenancy is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the spouses are intended to own the property as joint tenants.

There is no “evidence to the contrary” in this case. Ms. White and Mr. Black hold equal 50 percent interests in the matrimonial home.

Maryelle Symons

Barrister  & Solicitor