Unrau v. Unrau, (2007) 222 Man.R.(2d) 121 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: December 07, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2007), 222 Man.R.(2d) 121 (QBM);2007 MBQB 304

Unrau v. Unrau (2007), 222 Man.R.(2d) 121 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.045

Laverne Sandra Helen Unrau (petitioner) v. Daniel Jacob Unrau (respondent)

(FD 04.03.00139; 2007 MBQB 304)

Indexed As: Unrau v. Unrau

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Portage la Prairie Centre

Harrison, Master

December 7, 2007.

Summary:

At issue in a division of marital property was the valuation of a trucking corporation, wholly owned and controlled by the husband.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench accepted expert evidence showing an "en bloc" increase in share value for the corporation of $30,000 during the marriage. The Master declined to pierce the corporate veil to examine the acquisition costs and disposition returns of corporate assets acquired and disposed of during the marriage.

Company Law - Topic 311

Nature of corporations - Lifting the corporate veil - One person company - At issue in a division of marital property was the valuation of a trucking corporation, wholly owned and controlled by the husband - The husband submitted that the court should consider only the increase in the value of the corporate shares during the marriage - The wife asserted that the court should consider not only the share value, but also examine the acquisition costs and disposition returns of corporate assets acquired and disposed of during the marriage - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench rejected the wife's position - Nothing justified piercing the corporate veil - While the husband totally controlled the corporation in every sense, there was no evidence that he had committed any fraud or wrong that would unjustly deprive the wife of any claim - The husband had provided complete corporate and personal financial disclosure, appraisal reporting and viva voce evidence - There was no evidence that any assets or funds had flowed directly to the husband - At all times, the corporation had maintained ownership of all assets, including cash - Consequently, there was no need to analyze each and every running stock transaction - The court accepted expert evidence showing an "en bloc" increase in share value for the corporation of $30,000 during the marriage - See paragraphs 9 to 25.

Company Law - Topic 315

Nature of corporations - Lifting the corporate veil - Preventing injustices - [See Company Law - Topic 311 ].

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - [See Company Law - Topic 311 ].

Family Law - Topic 880.47

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Company shares, stock options, etc. - [See Company Law - Topic 311 ].

Family Law - Topic 888

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Valuation (incl. time for) - [See Company Law - Topic 311 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lynch v. Segal et al. (2006), 219 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), dist. [para. 15].

Rohani v. Rohani et al. (2004), 205 B.C.A.C. 178; 337 W.A.C. 178; 2004 BCCA 605, refd to. [para. 16].

Barrett v. Barrett, [2004] A.R. Uned. 488; 2004 ABQB 508, dist. [para. 17].

Shuler v. Shuler (1986), 3 R.F.L.(3d) 9 (Alta. Q.B.), dist. [para. 18].

Debora v. Debora (2006), 218 O.A.C. 237; 33 R.F.L.(6th) 252 (C.A.), dist. [para. 19].

Wildman v. Wildman (2006), 215 O.A.C. 239; 83 O.R.(3d) 401; 273 D.L.R.(4th) 37; 33 R.F.L.(6th) 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Arsenault v. Arsenault (1998), 59 O.T.C. 232; 1998 CarswellOnt 1488; 38 R.F.L.(4th) 175 (Gen. Div.), appld. [para. 21].

Voth v. Voth (2003), 174 Man.R.(2d) 17 (Q.B. Master), dist. [para. 24].

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Jordan Lee-Wing, for the petitioner;

Diane H. Stevenson, for the respondent.

This matter was heard by Harrison, Master, of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Portage la Prairie Centre, who delivered the following reasons on December 7, 2007.