Interim Sale of Family Property During Separation in British Columbia

Disclaimer: This blog is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should obtain advice from a qualified lawyer about their specific situation.

Interim Sale of Family Property During Separation in British Columbia (604) 395-8223

When spouses separate, one of the most significant issues can be deciding what happens to the family home or other jointly owned real estate before trial.

In some cases, waiting until the final resolution of a family law matter may not be practical. Mortgage payments, carrying costs, declining property values, or the inability of either party to maintain the property may make an earlier sale necessary.

British Columbia courts have the authority to order the interim sale of family property before trial where it is considered necessary or expedient to do so.

Can a Property Be Sold Before Trial?

Yes.

Under Rule 15-8 of the Supreme Court Family Rules, the Court may order the sale of property before trial if it appears necessary or expedient.

In addition, the Court’s authority may arise from:

• Section 216 of the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c. 25
• The Partition of Property Act, RSBC 1996, c. 347

These provisions allow the Court to address situations where maintaining the property until trial may no longer be practical or beneficial.

What Must Be Proven?

The spouse seeking the sale bears the burden of proving that the order should be granted.

The Court has repeatedly stated that interim sale applications are requests to alter the status quo before trial. As a result, any uncertainty regarding the fairness of a sale will generally be resolved in favour of maintaining the existing situation.

Source:
Morrison v. Greenwood, 2020 BCSC 1356

The Two-Part Test

When considering an interim sale application, the Court generally asks:

1. Is the Sale Necessary?

The Court will consider whether circumstances make it impractical to continue holding the property until trial.

2. If Not Necessary, Is the Sale Expedient?

Even where there is no strict necessity, the Court may still order a sale if doing so would be advantageous to both parties after balancing their respective interests.

Source:
Morrison v. Greenwood, 2020 BCSC 1356
Vyskovska v. Vyskovsky, 2024 BCSC 1725

Factors Considered by the Court

There is no exhaustive list of factors that apply in every case. However, British Columbia courts have considered:

• The needs of any children involved.
• The availability of alternative housing.
• The emotional circumstances of the parties.
• Market and economic conditions.
• Whether the asset is losing value.
• The parties’ ability to maintain the property.
• Whether a sale may encourage settlement.
• Whether the sale could affect a claim for unequal division.
• Whether the eventual sale of the property is inevitable.
• Whether one party may ultimately retain the property after trial.

Source:
Morrison v. Greenwood, 2020 BCSC 1356

Current Market Conditions May Matter

External economic conditions can play an important role in an interim sale application.

For example, courts may consider:

• Rising or declining property values.
• Mortgage interest rates.
• Carrying costs.
• Property taxes.
• Insurance expenses.
• The financial ability of either spouse to continue maintaining the property.

In some situations, delaying a sale could significantly reduce the value of an asset available for division.

Recent Authority

British Columbia courts have recently reaffirmed the principles governing interim sale applications.

Relevant decisions include:

• Tsui v. Chow, 2025 BCSC 14
• Vyskovska v. Vyskovsky, 2024 BCSC 1725
• Morrison v. Greenwood, 2020 BCSC 1356

These cases confirm that interim sales remain discretionary and highly fact-specific.

Key Takeaway

An interim sale of family property is not automatically granted simply because one spouse wants to sell.

The Court must carefully consider whether the sale is necessary or advantageous, while balancing the interests of both parties and preserving fairness pending trial.

Sources

• Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c. 25, s. 216
• Supreme Court Family Rules, Rule 15-8
• Partition of Property Act, RSBC 1996, c. 347
• Tsui v. Chow, 2025 BCSC 14
• Vyskovska v. Vyskovsky, 2024 BCSC 1725
• Morrison v. Greenwood, 2020 BCSC 1356