Lamoureux v. Hedquist

Lamoureux v. Hedquist

The court found the disputed transactions were not in the ordinary course of business and dismissed the applications seeking declarations to that effect; nevertheless, on the variation application the court concluded the proposed acquisition of Darlorn could be permitted as a bona fide business acquisition without...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 BCSC 1178
Parties
Claimant: Leanne Lorraine Lamoureux; Respondent: Thomas Donald Hedquist; Respondent: 0867873 B.C. Ltd.; Respondent by Counterclaim: Robyn Gibson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Law Property Dispute (family Law Act) / Interim Application to Vary S.91 Property Restraining Order (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Application granted in part and dismissed in part: non-disclosure order granted; declarations that transactions were in the ordinary course dismissed; s.91 order varied to allow Darlorn acquisition and to permit sale of Oasis with sale proceeds held in trust; costs reserved to each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Property Restraining Order, Variation of S.91 Order, Ordinary Course of Business, Asset Disposition and Acquisition, Sale of Property and Treatment of Proceeds, Unequal Division (s.95)
Source Language
english
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Property Restraining Order Variation of S.91 Order Ordinary Course of Business Asset Disposition and Acquisition Sale of Property and Treatment of Proceeds +1 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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leanne Lorraine Lamoureux

Claimant

Thomas Donald Hedquist

Respondent

0867873 B.C. Ltd.

Respondent

Robyn Gibson

Respondent by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Family Law Property Dispute (family Law Act) / Interim Application to Vary S.91 Property Restraining Order (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition of Darlorn by Superior Septic Services breaches the s.91 Property Restraining Order or is in the ordinary course of business
  2. 2 Whether sale of the Oasis Property is permitted and how net sale proceeds should be applied
  3. 3 Whether the reverse onus under s.91 continues to apply on an application to vary an existing Property Restraining Order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the disputed transactions were not in the ordinary course of business and dismissed the applications seeking declarations to that effect; nevertheless, on the variation application the court concluded the proposed acquisition of Darlorn could be permitted as a bona fide business acquisition without material prejudice to the claimant and varied the s.91 Property Restraining Order to allow the purchase; the court also varied the order to permit the sale of the Oasis Property but ordered net sale proceeds, after standard adjustments, to be paid into the claimant's counsel trust account pending written agreement or further court order; a non-disclosure order re Darlorn was...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and dismissed in part: non-disclosure order granted; declarations that transactions were in the ordinary course dismissed; s.91 order varied to allow Darlorn acquisition and to permit sale of Oasis with sale proceeds held in trust; costs reserved to each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Order that the claimant shall not disclose any information related to Darlorn Septic Services to any person except her accountants and legal advisors
  • Applications that the acquisition of Darlorn and the sale of the Oasis Property were in the ordinary course of business (paragraphs 3 and 5 of the notice of application) dismissed