The applicant wife brought a motion for the partition and sale of four rural properties, including a farm and a woodlot, owned by the parties during their 25-year marriage.
The respondent husband opposed the sale of the farm and woodlot, arguing they were "farms" under the Family Law Act and thus protected from sale under section 11 prior to a final equalization determination.
The court found that while the farm was a "farm" and the woodlot was a "business" under the Act, section 11 does not operate as a complete bar to partition and sale.
Balancing the applicant's prima facie right to partition against the likelihood of section 9 remedies, the court ordered both properties listed for sale immediately, noting the farm's lack of profitability and the applicant's right to realize the highest market value.
