A separation can put a family business under pressure long before property division reaches trial. One spouse may control the shares and bank accounts while the other has spent years running the business. If cooperation breaks down, who makes the decisions—and how can the business’s value be protected?

In Madsen v MacNutt, 2026 BCSC 1800, the Supreme Court of British Columbia addressed those questions through interim orders. Its answer was not simply to put one spouse in charge of everything.

What happened

During a 15-year relationship, the claimant worked as controller of a company owned by the respondent. He had established the business long before the relationship. After separation, the claimant sought operational control, restrictions on expenditures, payments from company funds and money to finance the family litigation.

The distinction between management and ownership mattered. Her years of work did not automatically entitle her to replace the owner in day-to-day control. Equally, his ownership did not end the inquiry into protecting the financial interest she claimed in the family proceedings.

What the court decided

The court refused the requested transfer of operational control and reinstatement. The evidence did not justify that intervention. However, it was concerned about the respondent’s substantial personal use of company funds while the claimant no longer received similar benefits.

The court ordered a payment of $1.25 million to the claimant from specified property-sale proceeds, reflecting its estimate of the respondent’s relevant personal expenditures. It also required matching payments to the claimant when company funds were paid for his personal benefit, with the appropriate ongoing amount left for agreement or further submissions. These were interim measures, not a final division of ownership.

Preservation and conduct orders restricted certain transactions while allowing ordinary business operations. The court also ordered interim distributions of $250,000 to each party for legal fees. The claimant’s interim spousal-support application was adjourned with permission to return.

Why the distinction matters

A request to manage a company, an application to protect assets and a request to fund litigation are different remedies. Each needs evidence directed to its purpose. A court may reject a takeover of management while still restricting spending or making financial orders.

The decision also does not mean every company payment should be divided equally. The judge rejected proposed measures that could deprive the company of funds needed for legitimate business purposes. Corporate debts, cash flow, taxes and working capital still mattered.

What to prepare before seeking advice

  • Gather ownership records, financial statements and records of shareholder loans.
  • Separate ordinary business expenses from payments benefiting either spouse personally.
  • Identify specific threatened transactions or changes, with dates and supporting documents.
  • Prepare a realistic litigation budget and explain why available funds are insufficient.

Do not remove funds, change access credentials or take over management simply because you believe a family claim gives you that right. The appropriate response depends on the corporate arrangements, existing orders and evidence.

The takeaway

Protecting a potential financial interest does not always require taking control of the business. Madsen illustrates a tailored interim approach, not a general rule that the non-owning spouse becomes an owner or receives a particular payment.

Sinclair Centre Law LLP assists with separation, property division and family-business disputes in British Columbia. Contact our Vancouver office to discuss the records, financial concerns and next steps relevant to your situation.

Sources and next steps