Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Petitioners sought a court-ordered sale of jointly owned property under the Partition of Property Act.

• Dispute arose over conduct of sale and whether any party should be allowed to bid on the property.

• Respondent claimed a 50% interest in property improvements based on an alleged prior agreement.

• Court evaluated competing claims of ownership, intention to bid, and ability to facilitate the sale.

• Majority ownership was a decisive factor in awarding conduct of sale to the petitioners.

• Protective terms were imposed to address potential conflicts of interest and ensure sale transparency.

Background and factual overview

This case involves a dispute between family members over the sale of a valuable piece of real estate in Richmond, British Columbia. The petitioners, Pardeep Singh Athwal and his father Kesar Singh Athwal, brought an application under the Partition of Property Act seeking an order for the sale of a property located at 13300 Blundell Road. The respondent, Taranjeet Singh Athwal, is Kesar’s elder son and Pardeep’s brother.

The property was originally purchased in 1997 by Kesar and his wife Parminder, with financial contributions from their sons, who were added as joint owners. Over time, a large home and guesthouse were constructed on the land, which also contains a functioning blueberry farm and rental units. Following Parminder’s passing in 2023, her interest transferred to the surviving joint tenants, converting their arrangement to a tenancy in common.

Tensions developed among the family members, particularly around cohabitation and financial responsibilities. Pardeep and Kesar ultimately moved off the property and initiated proceedings for its sale. Taranjeet opposed the petition initially, citing the needs of his school-aged children, including one with health concerns. He also asserted a specific agreement giving him a 50% interest in the value of the improvements made to the property, a claim that the petitioners disputed.

Legal issues and court’s analysis

The central legal issue was whether the court should order the sale of the property and, if so, who should have conduct of that sale. The court confirmed that the petitioners met the statutory requirements for such an order under section 6 of the Partition of Property Act, given their majority interest in the property.

The court considered competing arguments over who was better positioned to conduct the sale. The petitioners wanted the right to bid on the property, while Taranjeet, who disavowed any intention to bid, argued that he should manage the sale process. He claimed his status as current resident and knowledge of the improvements made him best suited for this role.

Justice Tucker found that although a potential conflict of interest arises when a party wishes to both conduct the sale and bid on the property, this can be mitigated through procedural safeguards. These included court oversight, mandatory disclosure of sale-related information to the respondent, and the use of an independent real estate agent and appraisal process.

The court also addressed interim financial arrangements. Taranjeet was made responsible for maintaining the property and covering interim expenses, but with the right to later seek contribution from the petitioners. Similarly, the petitioners preserved their right to claim occupational rent.

Outcome and final order

The court granted the petition, ordering that the property be sold with exclusive conduct of sale awarded to the petitioners. However, various protective measures were put in place, such as requiring court approval or unanimous agreement for any sale, mandatory updates to the respondent about sale developments, and allowing all parties to submit purchase offers. The proceedings were converted into an action for further determinations related to contributions, alleged agreements, and distribution of proceeds.

In conclusion, the court balanced competing interests by recognizing the petitioners’ majority stake while safeguarding the respondent’s rights through transparency and oversight mechanisms.