When will a court order joint ownership of a property?

The court is mindful of the decision of our Court of Appeal in MacLennan v. MacLennan, 2003 NSCA 9 at para. 13, where Justice Cromwell, J.A., as he then was, wrote: 13. . . . if postponement of division is to be achieved after trial as opposed to the ordering of exclusive possession on an interim basis, it will generally be wrong, absent unusual circumstances, to maintain joint ownership. Further, at para 16, the court stated: 16. . . . generally, court ordered postponement of realization of a one‑half interest in a matrimonial asset (as opposed to delay in realization caused, for example, by market forces) creates an unequal division of that asset

Other factors have been considered when exclusive possession/transfer was granted. In the case of Mailman v. Mailman, 1991 CarswellNS182 the fact that the husband conducted his fishing business from the property was a factor considered by the court. In the case of Kapoor v. Kapoor, 1999 CarswellNS 221 one party had a dental practice in the community and therefore, had the property transferred to her. In the case of Thackerey v. Thackerey, 2008 NSSC 223, the husband was on a restricted income and living outside the country. The home was therefore transferred to his wife.