In Rastkar v. Soltani, 2024 ONSC 1384, Justice Somji provides timely and pragmatic guidance for family law practitioners navigating the sale of a jointly owned matrimonial home—particularly where one spouse wishes to buy the property. Released March 5, 2024, the decision reinforces key principles surrounding fair market value, bidding rights, and good faith participation in sale processes.
Background
The case involved a dispute between separated spouses regarding the sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home. Both parties agreed it should be sold. However, disagreement arose when Mr. Rastkar, who no longer lived in the home, submitted a $650,000 bid during a closed bidding process. The property had been listed at $799,000.
Ms. Soltani, still residing in the home with the children, rejected the bid as far too low. Mr. Rastkar alleged she was delaying the sale to remain in the home rent-free and preventing him from purchasing it. He sought a court order declaring his bid valid and binding. Ms. Soltani argued that his conduct—specifically, suspending the listing process—interfered with a fair sale.
A key point of contention was the interpretation of Schedule A to the listing agreement, which stated: “In case of any potential conflict of interest, like a seller offers, resolution will be deferred to legal counsel as and when such situations arise.” Mr. Rastkar argued that Ms. Soltani breached this clause by rejecting his offer rather than referring the matter to counsel for resolution. Ms. Soltani contended that rejecting a below-market offer was within her rights as a joint owner.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed
Justice Somji’s decision reinforces several important legal principles that Ontario family law lawyers should note:
a. Fair Market Value Entitlement
Each joint owner is entitled to receive fair market value for their interest. Courts will not force a party to accept a low offer, even if it exceeds a court-ordered minimum price.
b. Equal Bidding Rights, No Special Treatment
As established in Martin v. Martin (1992), 38 R.F.L. (3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.), either spouse may bid on the home, but they must do so under the same conditions as any other buyer—no insider advantages.
c. Good Faith Participation Required
Bidding spouses must follow all agreed processes in good faith, including formal bidding rules and procedures. Courts will scrutinize conduct that undermines fair dealings.
d. Shared Responsibility for Delays
Justice Somji found that both parties contributed to delays in the sale process. While Mr. Rastkar claimed Ms. Soltani delayed the sale to remain in the home, the Court noted his own actions—particularly filing a Notice of Motion and ordering the suspension of the listing—were significant contributing factors. The Court also acknowledged Ms. Soltani’s legitimate concerns about finalizing the draft Final Order before relocating with the children.
e. Minimum Price Does Not Equal Obligation to Sell
Meeting a minimum threshold (e.g., $630,000) doesn’t compel acceptance, especially if the parties agreed to list the home at a higher price (in this case, $799,000).
Practical Takeaways for Counsel
This case provides helpful direction for lawyers structuring sales involving potential owner bids:
a. Draft clear bidding protocols
If a closed bidding process is contemplated, set out how seller offers will be handled, how disputes are resolved, and within what timeframes.
b. Secure multiple professional valuations
The court considered three separate valuations ranging from $630,000 to $799,000. This gave useful context for determining fair market value.
c. Educate clients on market expectations
Parties should understand that agreeing to a minimum price does not override the right to pursue the best possible offer.
d. Use automatic price adjustment clauses
Justice Somji’s solution included automatic price reductions—$20,000 every 30 days—to prevent ongoing delays and eliminate the need for repeated litigation.
The Court’s Order
Justice Somji dismissed Mr. Rastkar’s application and charted a practical path forward:
- The home is to be listed by April 3, 2024, at $750,000
- Listing price is to automatically decrease by $20,000 every 30 days, unless the parties agree otherwise
- Either party may bid at the current listing price, with no preferential treatment
- The listing agent sequence previously agreed upon is to be honoured
This structure strikes a balance between ensuring fair market exposure and avoiding further court intervention.
Key Implications for Practice
This decision offers a strong reminder that while both spouses may bid on the matrimonial home, the process must be grounded in:
- Transparent market principles
- Well-drafted sale agreements
- Procedural clarity
- Respect for the other party’s entitlement to fair value
Ultimately, Rastkar v. Soltani stands as a useful precedent for resolving sale disputes involving joint owners, offering a practical template for counsel seeking to avoid deadlock and litigation.
Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!
Cheryl Goldhart is a mediator and arbitrator who can make a difference in resolving your family disputes.
- Four Decades of Specialized Family Law Practice: Cheryl brings a wealth of knowledge with nearly 40 years dedicated exclusively to family law.
- Expertise in Counselling with a Masters Degree: Her Masters Degree in Counselling enables her to have a unique blend of empathy and insight.
- Recognized Expertise in Family Law: The Law Society of Ontario has certified Cheryl as a Family Law Specialist.
- Ontario Association for Family Mediation Accredited Mediator: Cheryl holds accreditation from the OAFM, underscoring her expertise as a mediator.
- ADR Institute of Ontario Designated Professional: Cheryl’s designation by Ontario’s ADR Institute reflects her skill in arbitrating family law disputes.
- Recipient of Prestigious Honours and Awards: Among Cheryl’s numerous recognitions is the prestigious Award for Excellence in Family Law from the Ontario Bar Association.
Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.
