The applicant, an equitable receiver for a creditor, sought an order for the judicial sale of a matrimonial home under the Partition Act to satisfy outstanding costs orders against one of the co-owners.
The respondents opposed, arguing the receiver lacked standing and that a sale would be oppressive to the innocent co-owner.
The court held that an equitable receiver, when authorized, has standing to bring such an application, distinguishing it from an execution creditor.
The court exercised its discretion to order the sale, finding that the inconvenience to the co-owner was insufficient to outweigh the creditor's right to collect, especially given the substantial equity in the property.
