The issues raised were new matters, not a continuation of prior litigation
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that new legal proceedings are required to resolve disputes over funds from the sale of a matrimonial home and the ownership of a safe’s contents.
The dispute in Skrak v Skrak, 2025 ONSC 969 concerned two key issues: entitlement to $15,000 held in trust from the home’s sale and ownership of valuables stored in a safe. The moving party claimed most trust funds and full ownership of the safe’s contents. The responding party opposed these claims, asserting full entitlement to the trust funds and a right to half of the valuables.
The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but could not decide the issues based on the existing trial record or affidavit evidence, requiring the parties to start a fresh proceeding.
One of the central financial disputes involved a joint line of credit (LOC). After separation, the moving party withdrew $30,000, and the court ordered them to repay it at trial. However, after the home’s sale in August 2024, a dispute arose over the $15,000 held in trust. The moving party argued that tax arrears paid from the LOC should be the responsibility of the responding party and sought reimbursement for interest payments. The responding party asserted that both parties shared financial obligations and had already borne a disproportionate share of the home’s costs.
The Superior Court found that the trial did not fully address property tax liability and could not resolve the issue through affidavit evidence alone. Additionally, because the moving party had not raised the claim for interest reimbursement at trial, the court ruled that it could not be revisited post-judgment. As a result, both matters require a new proceeding.
The second dispute involved valuables stored in a safe within the matrimonial home. At trial, the moving party claimed ownership of jewelry and cash allegedly stored there but failed to establish proof of ownership at the time of separation. After the trial, the parties opened the safe and placed its contents in a joint safety deposit box. The moving party sought full possession, while the responding party argued for an equal division or a financial adjustment through equalization.
The court found insufficient evidence to establish ownership or value of the items. Additionally, the relationship between these assets and the equalization process remained unclear. Given these uncertainties, the parties must litigate the matter in a new proceeding.
While the court recognized the importance of efficiently addressing post-trial disputes, it found that these issues were not merely a continuation of prior litigation but rather new matters requiring further adjudication. As a result, the parties must initiate fresh legal proceedings to resolve the financial and property disputes.
