Delesalle v. Delesalle

Delesalle v. Delesalle

The preferred shares were gifts received through a discretionary family trust that had not vested and therefore did not confer an ownership interest at the triggering event; the shares were passive assets not ordinarily used for a family purpose despite occasional use of income, and the appellant made no contribution to any venture represented by the shares — accordingly the shares are "other assets" not subject to division under the Family Relations Act.

Citation
2006 BCCA 445
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Anita Rose Delesalle; Respondent (defendant): Timothy Paul Delesalle
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Property Division Under the Family Relations Act / Appeal From Trial Judgment and Consent Order Following Trial (court of Appeal Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's finding that DHL preferred shares are "other assets" not subject to division affirmed
Legal Topics
Family Asset Characterization, Family Relations Act Ss.56 59, Gifts Versus Family Property, Discretionary Trust Vesting, Division of Property on Marriage Breakdown
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Trusts Appeals Family Asset Characterization Family Relations Act Ss.56 59 Gifts Versus Family Property Discretionary Trust Vesting +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Rose Delesalle

Appellant (plaintiff)

Timothy Paul Delesalle

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Property Division Under the Family Relations Act / Appeal From Trial Judgment and Consent Order Following Trial (court of Appeal Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DHL preferred shares are a family asset subject to division under the Family Relations Act
  2. 2 Whether the preferred shares were "ordinarily used...for a family purpose" under s.58(2)
  3. 3 Whether the respondent "owned an interest" in the 1964 Trust such that s.58(3)(a)(ii) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The preferred shares were gifts received through a discretionary family trust that had not vested and therefore did not confer an ownership interest at the triggering event; the shares were passive assets not ordinarily used for a family purpose despite occasional use of income, and the appellant made no contribution to any venture represented by the shares — accordingly the shares are "other assets" not subject to division under the Family Relations Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial judge's finding that DHL preferred shares are "other assets" not subject to division affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed