Olsen v. Olsen

Olsen v. Olsen

The court exercised its discretion to deny joinder of Chevelle Investments Ltd. because joinder was unnecessary given that documents and evidence could be obtained by subpoena and the claimant's claim against the second and third respondents (Carole Olsen and Concept Muscle Cars Ltd.) was dismissed: the evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 BCSC 1615
Parties
Claimant: Elisia Ann Olsen; Respondent: Jason Everett Olsen; Respondent: Carole Olsen; Respondent: Concept Muscle Cars Ltd. Ind. No. BC0655768
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Law Property (constructive and Resulting Trusts) / Interlocutory Application (joinder and Strike/dismissal Application)
Outcome
Application to add Chevelle Investments Ltd. denied; claim against Carole Olsen and Concept Muscle Cars Ltd. dismissed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Joinder of Parties, Striking Claims, Costs, Valuation of Shares, Subpoena and Document Production, Adverse Inference
Source Language
english
Family Law Trusts Corporate Law Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Constructive Trust Resulting Trust +6 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Elisia Ann Olsen

Claimant

Jason Everett Olsen

Respondent

Carole Olsen

Respondent

Concept Muscle Cars Ltd. Ind. No. BC0655768

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Property (constructive and Resulting Trusts) / Interlocutory Application (joinder and Strike/dismissal Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Chevelle Investments Ltd. should be added as a respondent
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's claims against Carole Olsen and Concept Muscle Cars Ltd. should be struck and dismissed
  3. 3 Whether the shares in the companies constitute family assets and the proper method of proving their value

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to deny joinder of Chevelle Investments Ltd. because joinder was unnecessary given that documents and evidence could be obtained by subpoena and the claimant's claim against the second and third respondents (Carole Olsen and Concept Muscle Cars Ltd.) was dismissed: the evidence demonstrated that investments came from Carole and shares to Jason were gifts, Jason redeemed his shares, and any claim is limited to the increase in value of shares which can be pursued at trial against Jason with documentary production; costs were awarded to Carole Olsen.

Court Disposition

Application to add Chevelle Investments Ltd. denied; claim against Carole Olsen and Concept Muscle Cars Ltd. dismissed.

Orders

  • Joinder of Chevelle Investments Ltd. is refused
  • The claimant's claims against the second and third respondents (Carole Olsen and Concept Muscle Cars Ltd.) are dismissed