Overview

In British Columbia family law, the presumption of equal division of family property is a cornerstone of the Family Law Act (FLA). While the legislation allows for unequal division in cases of "significant unfairness," legal professionals have long debated where exactly that threshold lies.

On December 10, 2025, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (BCCA) provided a decisive answer in Lamoureux v. Hedquist, 2025 BCCA 438. The Court overturned a trial judge’s decision to award a business owner 75% of the growth in his companies' value, reinforcing that a spouse’s lack of direct contribution to a business is not sufficient grounds to depart from equal division.

Case Background

The parties, Leanne Lamoureux and Thomas Hedquist, were in a marriage-like relationship for approximately five years, ending in 2020. Mr. Hedquist entered the relationship owning shares in several companies, including Trademark Industries Ltd. and Superior Septic Services Ltd.

The parties agreed on the valuations of these excluded assets:

Under the FLA, the starting value is excluded, but the growth in value during the relationship is family property, presumptively divisible 50/50.

At trial, the judge ordered a 75/25 split of this growth in favor of Mr. Hedquist. The trial judge reasoned that Mr. Hedquist was the driving force behind the business, citing his "acumen, reputation, and lack of competition." The trial judge famously remarked that Ms. Lamoureux had merely "hitched her wagon" to an already successful enterprise and that equal division would be significantly unfair given her "minimal contributions."

  • Value at start of relationship: $1.285 million (Excluded Property)
  • Value at separation/trial: $3.575 million
  • Growth in value: Approximately $2.29 million

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The BCCA, led by Mr. Justice Harris, allowed the appeal on the property division issue, substituting an order for equal division of the increase in value.

The Court found that the trial judge committed a legal error by placing undue emphasis on "relative contribution." The BCCA clarified several critical points regarding s. 95 of the FLA:

The Court reiterated that "significant unfairness" requires something "weighty, meaningful or compelling" (Jaszczewska v. Kostanski, 2016 BCCA 286). It is not enough to show that one spouse worked harder or contributed more financially. The Legislature intended to constrain judicial discretion to promote certainty.

The Respondent argued that the business growth was due to pre-relationship momentum. The BCCA rejected this, noting that the agreed-upon Fair Market Value (FMV) at the start of the relationship ($1.285 million) already priced in that momentum and future earning potential. To attribute subsequent growth to pre-relationship efforts would be an "indirect attack on the agreed-upon valuation."

The Court explicitly rejected the trial judge’s "hitched wagon" reasoning, stating: > "In my view, it is contrary to the legislative policy to ground unequal division on a conclusion that one spouse 'hitched [their] wagon' to an already successful and growing enterprise... This is exactly the kind of analysis the new statutory framework eschews." (Para 27)

  • The Threshold is High
  • "Momentum" is Already Captured
  • Rejection of the "Hitched Wagon" Theory

The Support Ruling: A Warning on Interim Orders

While Ms. Lamoureux won on property division, she was unsuccessful in appealing the support orders. The trial judge had imputed an income of nearly $92,000 to her based on her intentional unemployment and interior design skills.

Consequently, the final order required her to repay approximately $90,000 in interim support she had received prior to trial. The BCCA upheld this, noting that interim orders are "rough justice" designed for immediate needs based on incomplete records. When a final trial determines the actual entitlement, repayment can be ordered to correct the ledger, and this does not require the same legal test as retroactive variation of a final order.

Implications for BC Law

Lamoureux v. Hedquist serves as a stern reminder that the FLA prioritizes equal partnership over economic contribution.

  • For Business Owners: You cannot rely on the argument that you "did all the work" to protect the growth of your business assets during a relationship. If the business grows, that growth is shared equally unless "exceptional circumstances" exist.
  • For Non-Owner Spouses: This decision protects your entitlement to asset growth even if your contribution to the specific business was minimal or non-existent.

Practical Advice

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance regarding business asset division or support, please consult with a qualified family lawyer.

  • Cohabitation/Marriage Agreements are Essential: If a business owner wishes to protect the growth of their assets from equal division, they must sign an agreement opting out of the FLA property regime. Relying on s. 95 "significant unfairness" at trial is a high-risk strategy.
  • Valuations Matter: The Court placed heavy weight on the agreed FMV. Parties must ensure valuations are accurate at the start of the relationship, as this figure encapsulates the "goodwill" and "momentum" existing at that time.
  • Beware Interim Support: Recipients of interim support should be aware that if a trial judge later imputes income or determines a lower entitlement, they may face a substantial repayment order, as seen with the $90,000 repayment in this case.