In a comprehensive decision released on November 20, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has untangled a complex family dispute involving a lavender farming business, allegations of forged documents, a “fictitious” agreement, and a fractured relationship between a father and his wife and sons1. The case of Fazzari v. Fazzari centered on the breakdown of the marriage between Sebastiano and Anna Maria Fazzari and the subsequent battle over significant real estate holdings in the Niagara region, including a matrimonial home and two farm properties operated by their sons, Vincenzo and Alexander. Justice K. Bingham’s ruling notably declared a disputed “land transfer agreement” invalid, finding it was likely created after the fact to defeat the husband’s claims to the property.
The Fazzari family had been deeply enmeshed in a joint enterprise known as Ridgeway Lavender Incorporated. At the time of their separation in May 2019, Sebastiano and Anna Maria were supporting their adult sons in developing this business, which utilized two farm properties located in Fort Erie and Port Colborne. The family dynamic shifted dramatically on May 14, 2019, following a physical altercation between Sebastiano and his son Vincenzo at the matrimonial home. The incident resulted in Sebastiano sustaining minor injuries after being pushed, leading to his permanent departure from the residence and the commencement of legal proceedings in 2021 to resolve the financial issues arising from the marriage breakdown.
Get legal advice on Zoom from an Ontario lawyer by clicking here.
The central controversy at trial was a document produced by the respondents, Anna Maria and her two sons, known as the land transfer agreement. Purportedly signed on August 26, 2018, nearly a year before the separation, this contract stipulated that in the event of a separation between the parents, the matrimonial home and both farm properties, along with all contents and chattels, would be transferred to Ridgeway Lavender Incorporated for the nominal sum of one dollar per property. The agreement essentially proposed that the corporation, solely owned by Alexander Fazzari, would assume ownership of the family’s entire real estate portfolio and personal belongings, leaving Sebastiano and Anna Maria with no equity in the assets they had spent decades acquiring.
Sebastiano Fazzari steadfastly denied the authenticity of this document. He testified that the agreement was entirely fictitious, never discussed, and certainly never signed by him. He told the court that he first saw a copy of the alleged contract in July 2022, three years after separation and well into the litigation process. The respondents maintained that the agreement was a genuine attempt at succession planning and tax management, drafted by the family members themselves without legal advice following a dinner at a local restaurant, M.T. Bellies. They argued the agreement was intended to protect the family assets as the sons entered into long-term relationships and to ensure the business could continue without interference.
Justice Bingham conducted a meticulous review of the evidence surrounding the creation and production of the land transfer agreement and found significant inconsistencies in the respondents’ version of events. The court noted that despite the document’s purported importance, transferring millions of dollars in assets for three dollars, it was not produced until 2022. It was absent from early settlement negotiations and was not listed in a financial spreadsheet prepared by Anna Maria in 2019. The judge drew an adverse inference from the fact that the agreement was not disclosed when the litigation commenced in 2021 or in the initial answers filed by the respondents.
The credibility of the respondents was severely damaged by their explanation for the document’s late appearance. Alexander and Anna Maria testified that the original digital version of the agreement was lost when tea was spilled on Anna Maria’s laptop in May 2022, destroying the computer. However, the court questioned why the computer was not destroyed in 2019 when relations soured, or earlier in the litigation. Furthermore, Alexander claimed to have found a single physical copy of the agreement in a box of his grandfather’s tax documents in the summer of 2022, alongside corporate minutes that had also never been produced previously. The court found these explanations vague and convenient.
The terms of the agreement itself were scrutinized and found to be commercially and logically unsound. The contract required Sebastiano and Anna Maria to transfer not just the real estate but all personal effects, specifically listing items such as shoes, tractors, art, and “gold bars.” Justice Bingham noted that there was no evidence the family ever owned gold bars. More critically, the agreement required the parents to hand over the properties in excellent condition, essentially stripping them of all assets and leaving them financially destitute with no means to support themselves or purchase new homes. The judge observed that the agreement did not even achieve its stated goal of benefiting both sons, as it transferred all assets to a corporation owned exclusively by Alexander, leaving Vincenzo with no legal interest.
Contradictory testimony regarding the signing of the document further eroded the respondents’ case. Family members gave conflicting accounts of how the signing took place, with some recalling copies being passed around the table and others recalling a single copy signed sequentially. Biagio Crognale, Anna Maria’s father, testified that only one copy was signed, contradicting Alexander’s claim that five originals existed. Based on the cumulative weight of these inconsistencies, Justice Bingham concluded that the land transfer agreement was not a genuine document but was likely created by the respondents during the litigation to prevent the partition and sale of the properties. The agreement was declared null and void.
With the land transfer agreement set aside, the court turned to the issue of property ownership. The legal title to the Fort Erie farm was held by the parents and Alexander, while the Port Colborne farm was held by the parents, Alexander, and Vincenzo. Sebastiano argued that the sons held their interests in trust for the parents, but the court disagreed. Justice Bingham found that the parents had intended to gift the partial ownership interest to their sons to support their entrepreneurial ambitions. Consequently, the title ownership was deemed to reflect the true legal ownership. However, the court also found that Ridgeway Lavender and the sons had been unjustly enriched by using the farm properties for their business since 2019 without compensating Sebastiano, who was excluded from the land.
This finding of unjust enrichment significantly impacted the post-separation accounting. Typically, co-owners might be expected to share the carrying costs of a property, such as mortgage interest and taxes. However, because the lavender business had exclusive use of the farms to generate income—reporting sales of over $250,000 in 2022, while Sebastiano derived no benefit, the court ruled that Sebastiano was not required to contribute to the carrying costs of the farm properties from the date of separation to the trial. The judge determined that the business’s use of the land essentially offset the costs Sebastiano would otherwise owe.
The court did, however, order adjustments regarding the matrimonial home. Anna Maria had remained in the home and was solely responsible for the mortgage, line of credit, and property taxes for six years. The court calculated that Sebastiano owed her approximately $139,000 in post-separation adjustments to account for his share of these liabilities, as his equity in the home had been preserved by her payments. This amount included a share of insurance premiums and maintenance costs that Anna Maria had borne alone.
Another point of contention was the valuation of Sebastiano’s pension. Sebastiano had retired prior to separation, meaning his pension was already in pay. Anna Maria sought to exclude the value of the survivor benefit from her net family property calculation, citing a cancer diagnosis and her belief that Sebastiano would outlive her. However, in the absence of expert medical evidence regarding her life expectancy, and citing the fact that the pension had already vested as property, the court ruled that the survivor benefit, valued at over $324,000, must be included in her net family property. This inclusion contributed to the final calculation requiring Anna Maria to pay Sebastiano an equalization payment of $322,241.37.
The court ultimately ordered the sale of all three properties: the matrimonial home and the two farms. Recognizing the high level of conflict and the respondents’ desire to keep the properties, Justice Bingham included specific provisions to ensure the sale process would not be obstructed. The parties were given a timeline to select a realtor, and the judge noted that any interference by the respondents would result in the applicant being granted permission to sell the properties without their consent. The proceeds from the sales are to be used first to pay off the respective mortgages and debts associated with each property, with the remaining net proceeds divided according to the ownership shares determined by the court.
The decision resolves years of uncertainty regarding the Fazzari family assets. It serves as a stern reminder of the judicial scrutiny applied to domestic contracts, particularly those that appear during litigation with terms that defy commercial logic. By rejecting the fictitious land transfer agreement, the court restored the standard statutory framework for property division, ensuring that Sebastiano receives his share of the assets accumulated during the marriage. The final order requires the family to sever their financial ties through the sale of the land that once held their shared ambitions, bringing a definitive legal end to their joint ventures. The matter of costs remains to be settled, with the parties directed to make submissions if they cannot reach an agreement.
Read more about business cases in Canada here.
