In a decision released on November 10, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion brought by a husband seeking the immediate partition and sale of a matrimonial home in Mississauga1. The ruling highlights the complex intersection between a property owner’s statutory right to sell jointly held land and the equitable protections afforded to spouses under the Family Law Act, particularly when significant financial discrepancies and potential asset depletion are at issue shortly before a scheduled trial. Justice Wilkinson determined that selling the home prior to the trial scheduled for January 2026 would cause undue prejudice to the wife, who had established a prima facie case that her claims for support and equalization could exceed the husband’s share of the home’s equity.
The dispute centers on a property located at 1504 Trotwood Avenue in Mississauga, which served as the matrimonial home for Dana-Paula Caringi and Mauro Caringi during their long-term marriage. The couple, who had been married for approximately 28 or 29 years depending on the contested date of separation, have three adult children. While two of the children live independently, the youngest is a professional hockey player in Europe who resides at the matrimonial home with his mother during the off-season. Since the parties separated, the wife has remained in the home and has been solely responsible for its upkeep and maintenance costs. The husband has been contributing monthly payments toward a relatively small line of credit registered against the property, which currently has a balance of approximately $20,000.
Mauro Caringi initiated the motion to compel the sale of the property, arguing that he required his share of the equity to fund his legal defence. Specifically, the husband submitted affidavit evidence stating that he needed to provide his lawyer with a retainer of $250,000 plus HST for the upcoming trial. He argued that the home, valued between $1.23 million and $1.33 million, contained sufficient equity to facilitate this payment. According to his calculations, after discharging the small line of credit, his 50 percent share of the equity would amount to approximately $600,000. He contended that it would be unfair to force him to liquidate his Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) to fund the litigation, as doing so would trigger immediate tax consequences, whereas the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home would flow to the parties on a tax-free basis.
The husband further argued that the wife did not require a five-bedroom home for herself and that retaining the property was unnecessary. He posited that the only accurate way to determine the true value of the home was to test the market through a sale. Regarding the financial disputes between the parties, the husband relied on a prior decision by Justice Mandhane from September 2025, which had ruled that he had made sufficient financial disclosure. He asserted that he was not concealing assets and that the wife’s opposition to the sale was an attempt to relitigate disclosure issues that had already been settled. He claimed to have overpaid spousal support in the past and noted that he had already advanced a lump sum of $113,000 to the wife pursuant to a 2023 court order.
Dana-Paula Caringi vigorously opposed the motion, taking the position that the sale should be delayed until the trial concludes. Her primary legal argument rested on the request for a “vesting order,” a remedy where the court transfers title of a property from one spouse to another to satisfy a debt or judgment. The wife submitted that the husband owes her substantial amounts for equalization of net family property and retroactive spousal support. She argued that these debts likely exceed the value of the husband’s 50 percent interest in the home. Consequently, if the house were sold and the proceeds distributed and spent by the husband on legal fees, her ability to collect on a future judgment would be defeated, causing her irreparable prejudice.
To support her claim for a vesting order, the wife presented detailed financial evidence suggesting that the husband’s financial position was far more complex and potentially lucrative than he had admitted. She pointed to bank statements indicating that the husband had received over $2,000,000 in deposits since November 2018 that were not reflected in his taxable income or his net family property statement. The husband countered that these funds were largely irrelevant to the support and equalization issues because they were received post-separation. He explained that the monies were primarily payments from a wealthy friend, Lucio Di Iorio, intended to fund the husband’s car racing hobby, or were reimbursements from his employer.
Beyond the disputed $2 million, the wife highlighted other inconsistencies in the husband’s financial reporting to bolster her argument that he might not have sufficient assets outside the home to satisfy a judgment. She noted that the husband had included $760,000 in stock options on a recent financial statement, only to later depose that he did not own them and had included them in error. Furthermore, there was significant confusion regarding the value of the husband’s RRSPs. In an affidavit sworn just one week before the motion, the husband stated his RRSPs were worth only about $25,000 on a net basis. However, during the oral hearing, his legal counsel admitted that the husband had inadvertently failed to disclose RRSPs held with Great West Life valued at $364,000 gross.
The court was also presented with discrepancies regarding the husband’s income. While he had sworn in 2022 that his income was roughly $305,000, and his 2023 tax return showed income of over $327,000, his affidavit for the motion projected a drop in income to $180,000 for 2025. The wife argued that these fluctuating numbers and the previously undisclosed assets necessitated preserving the matrimonial home as security for her potential claims. She contended that the husband’s history of evasiveness meant the equity in the home was the only secure asset available to satisfy the equalization and support payments she expected to be awarded at trial.
In her legal analysis, Justice Wilkinson reviewed the applicable principles under the Partition Act and the Family Law Act. Under the Partition Act, a joint tenant has a prima facie right to compel the sale of land. However, the court retains a narrow discretion to refuse such a request if the sale would prejudice the rights of the other spouse under the Family Law Act. The court cited established jurisprudence, including the case of Goldman v. Kudeyla, which clarifies the test for resisting a sale. The resisting party must first establish a prima facie case that they are entitled to a competing interest, such as an equalization payment or support. If that case is established, the sale will be denied unless the moving party can demonstrate that the sale would not prejudice the rights of the resisting party.
Justice Wilkinson found that the wife had successfully met the burden of establishing a prima facie case. Even if the court were to accept the husband’s explanation regarding the $2 million in post-separation deposits and exclude them entirely from the calculation, the remaining financial evidence still suggested a significant liability. The wife’s calculations showed an equalization payment owed to her of approximately $476,000 based on valid date-of-separation assets. Additionally, using the husband’s own income history of earning over $300,000 annually, the wife established a prima facie claim for retroactive spousal support ranging between $600,000 and $780,000.
The court noted that even after accounting for the support payments the husband had already made, he likely owed the wife several hundred thousand dollars. Justice Wilkinson emphasized that these findings were made on a prima facie basis, meaning they were based on the evidence available at the motion stage and could be subject to change after a full trial with cross-examination. However, for the purpose of the motion, the evidence was sufficient to show that the wife’s potential entitlement exceeded the husband’s available liquid assets. The husband’s own evidence indicated that, aside from the home, his only significant assets were the recently revealed Great West Life RRSPs worth approximately $182,000 net.
This disparity between the husband’s potential liability and his available assets was the key factor in the court’s determination on prejudice. Justice Wilkinson concluded that if the wife succeeded at trial, she would need to access most, if not all, of the husband’s share of the home’s equity to satisfy the judgment. If the home were sold immediately and the husband used his share to pay legal fees, the wife would be left with a “paper judgment” that she could not collect. This scenario constituted a reasonable prospect of prejudice that outweighed the husband’s right to an immediate sale.
The timing of the request also played a significant role in the decision. The trial is scheduled to begin in January 2026, which was less than three months from the date of the ruling. Justice Wilkinson observed that given the logistics of real estate transactions, it was unlikely the home could be listed and sold before the trial commenced regardless of the court’s order. The court found that the husband had not provided any evidence that he was unable to sustain himself for the remaining months without accessing the home’s equity, nor was there evidence that he lacked funds for daily living expenses. The inability of the parties to agree on the home’s value was not considered a sufficient reason to force a sale so close to the trial date.
The husband raised a procedural argument, noting that the wife’s own court application had included a request for the partition and sale of the home. He argued that she should be precluded from resisting the relief she had originally requested. The court rejected this argument, noting that the wife’s application requested partition and sale only as a contingent alternative. Her primary request was for exclusive possession and a vesting order. The court ruled that pleading in the alternative is a standard legal practice and did not bar the wife from opposing the husband’s specific motion for an immediate sale, particularly given the changes in the financial landscape since the application was drafted.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the husband’s motion for partition and sale. The decision ensures that the asset remains intact until the trial judge can make a final determination regarding the complex financial issues, the validity of the $2 million in deposits, and the appropriate quantum of support and equalization. As the parties had reached a procedural agreement regarding costs, Justice Wilkinson ordered the husband to pay the wife costs fixed at $10,000 for the motion. The fate of the matrimonial home and the final division of assets will now be determined at the trial in January 2026.
Read about other family law cases here.
