Hachey v Hachey, 2025 NBKB 211 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Fiona Costello (Articled Clerk)
Denise Hachey died on May 1, 2005, after which the family home, located at 355 St. Peter Avenue was inherited by her sons, Philippe and Jean-Paul Hachey. In 2011, the sons transferred the property to themselves as tenants in common, each taking a 50% interest.
Jean-Paul and his wife moved into the home in 2014. In 2023, Philippe was experiencing financial difficulties and asked Jean-Paul to buyout his interest in the property. The property was appraised twice, once in November 2023 and once in January 2025. The brothers were ultimately unable to reach an agreement. Philippe then applied under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court for a forced sale of the property.
Rule 67 governs proceedings for the partition or sale of real property. It allows co-owners of real property to ask the Court to either divide the property physically or sell it. Once sold, the proceeds of the sale are be distributed among co-owners according to their respective interests.
Justice Roy explained that the relief sought in a Rule 67 application is equitable in nature and must be determined based on the specific circumstances of each case. The Court took into account that Jean-Paul and his wife have resided at 355 St. Peter Avenue since 2014 and have been responsible for the maintenance, renovations, and general upkeep of the property ever since. Because the property serves as their long-term home, it was determined that an order for a forced sale would not produce an equitable or fair outcome. Instead, the Court found it more appropriate for Jean-Paul to simply buy out Philippe’s interest.
To calculate Philippe’s interest, the Court reduced the property’s $483,000 market value by $32,560, to reflect the amount that Jean-Paul had spent on renovations in 2011. The Court then calculated Philippe’s interest as 30% of the adjusted amount. The Court did not award Phillipe 50% of the adjusted amount due to Jean-Paul’s continued investments and improvements in the property over the past decade.
Justice Roy emphasized that the goal of proceedings under Rule 67 is to ensure that fair compensation is obtained by each of the co-owners of the property and equal division may be inequitable or unfair when one party has borne a disproportionate share of expenses or maintenance. In the end, Philippe’s interest was valued at $135,132, which Jean-Paul was ordered to pay.
The Court’s decision reflects a careful balancing of ownership rights with fairness to the occupying co-owner, achieving a resolution that compensates Philippe for his interest, while acknowledging the significant financial and personal investments Jean-Paul has made in the property.
