Skip to main content

In This Volume

  • 8 (1) In a proceeding for partition where, if this Act had not been passed, an order for partition might have been made, then if any party interested in the property involved requests the court to order a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds instead of a division of the property, the court may order a sale of the property and give directions.
  • (2) The court may not make an order under subsection (1) if the other parties interested in the property, or some of them, undertake to purchase the share of a party requesting a sale.
  • (3) If an undertaking is given, the court may order a valuation of the share of the party requesting a sale in the manner the court thinks fit, and may give directions.



The parties were joint owners of real property—the petitioners as to one-third, the respondents as to two-thirds. In November 2018, the respondents offered to buy the petitioners’ one-third interest, based on an appraisal they had obtained (the “MacIntosh appraisal”) that valued the property at $2.175 million. The petitioners obtained an appraisal (the “JRC appraisal”) that the value of the property was $3.45 million; in addition, the petitioners commissioned a review of the MacIntosh appraisal, which set out why the MacIntosh appraisal should not be relied upon. The petitioners applied under s. 7 of the Partition of Property Act for an order that the property be sold and apportioned. The respondents said the order should be under s. 8(2), in light of their allegedly unconditional offer to purchase the property. In court, the respondents’ counsel said that his clients were prepared to unconditionally undertake to purchase the petitioners’ one-third, provided that there was some further process to determine the current value of the property, pursuant to s. 8(2). The court said the MacIntosh appraisal was not prepared for the purposes of litigation and did not meet the admissibility requirements of expert evidence. The JRC appraisal met the requirements for admissibility of expert evidence. Both JRC reports were admissible. Based on the second JRC report, the respondents’ appraisal significantly undervalued the property on the basis of its current limited residential use and not on its anticipated development potential. Given counsel’s assurance, the requirement for an unconditional offer under s. 8(2) was met. The court could not determine the value of the property by having the property go for sale, because s. 8(2) does not contemplate a sale process to determine the value. Further, it was possible that the value stated in the JRC appraisal was no longer a reliable indicator of the value of the property because its value might have decreased in the last 10 months. Therefore, the respondents would have 30 days to either: (1) pay the petitioners $1.1 million for the value of their interest in the property; or (2) obtain, file, and provide to the petitioners an admissible appraisal report (Chohan v. Sohi, 2019 BCSC 2334 (Chambers)).