H.B.D. v. A.H.D. et al

H.B.D. v. A.H.D. et al

The wife's remedy is limited to an undivided half interest in the husband's registered shares; s.66(1) cannot be used to pierce the corporate veil to reach ranch land and the unjust enrichment claim fails because there was a juristic reason (mutual expectation of equal contributions and reciprocal benefits); a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 BCSC 231
Parties
Plaintiff (wife): H.B.D.; Defendant (husband): A.H.D.; Defendant (corporate): D.[ ] Ranch Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Family Relations Act Property and Support Proceedings / Judgment After Trial (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Divorce granted; wife's claim against D.[ ] Ranch Ltd. dismissed; compensation order for buy-out dismissed; spousal support awarded to wife.
Legal Topics
Spousal Support, Division of Family Property, Shareholder Interest, Piercing Corporate Veil, Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Compensation Order, Family Relations Act S.66, Family Relations Act S.58, Divorce Act S.15.2
Source Language
english
Family Law Property Law Corporate Law Equity/unjust Enrichment Spousal Support Division of Family Property Shareholder Interest Piercing Corporate Veil +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.B.D.

Plaintiff (wife)

A.H.D.

Defendant (husband)

D.[ ] Ranch Ltd.

Defendant (corporate)

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Family Relations Act Property and Support Proceedings / Judgment After Trial (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.66(1) of the Family Relations Act permits cutting through corporate shares to reach corporate land (the ranch)
  2. 2 Whether the wife can recover against the corporate defendant on an unjust enrichment/constructive trust basis
  3. 3 Whether a compensation (buy-out) order under s.66 should be made against the husband

Ratio Decidendi

The wife's remedy is limited to an undivided half interest in the husband's registered shares; s.66(1) cannot be used to pierce the corporate veil to reach ranch land and the unjust enrichment claim fails because there was a juristic reason (mutual expectation of equal contributions and reciprocal benefits); a compensation (buy-out) order is refused because the husband cannot comply and case law disfavors such an order in these circumstances; however spousal support is awarded based on available resources and historical payments.

Court Disposition

Divorce granted; wife's claim against D.[ ] Ranch Ltd. dismissed; compensation order for buy-out dismissed; spousal support awarded to wife.

Orders

  • Divorce granted.
  • Wife is entitled to 50% of the shares registered in the husband's name (her remedy is the undivided half interest in the husband's shares).