It will be recalled that the trial judge in this case considered that the liquidation of Balic Woodworking was necessary to permit each of the parties to receive one-half in value of the family assets listed at para. 70 of his reasons. But at least three less draconian measures were available. As stated by Southin J.A. in Blackett v. Blackett 1989 CanLII 239 (BC CA), (1989) 40 B.C.L.R. (2d) 99: … an order vesting the shares in a private company in one spouse upon payment of compensation by the other spouse for that interest is not the only possible disposition when the asset in issue is shares of a private company. There are at least two other possible orders: 1. That the spouse who is the registered holder be directed to hold the shares in trust for that spouse and the other spouse according to their respective interests. 2. If the other shareholders of the company assent, that the spouse who is the registered holder be directed to transfer to the other spouse the appropriate number of shares and, thereby, effect a division. If the court decides upon a vesting in one spouse and compensation to the other, the question then becomes the measure of compensation. [At 105; emphasis added.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.