How have the courts determined that a holding company is a family asset?

In these determinations it is the overall pattern of use that must be considered. In Galloway v. Galloway, 2006 BCSC 1677, a holding company not ordinarily used for a family purpose was found to be a family asset by virtue of the asset it held, a veterinary practice that was used for a family purpose and was used to fund the holding company. The husband had purchased and completely paid for the practice well before the marriage. The court looked at the “overall use pattern” of the practice however, and found that the husband had drawn both a salary and management fee from it, had dispersed dividends from it to a family trust which was then used for family expenses, used it to provide himself a housing loan, derived funds from it to pay for the wife’s tuition for medical school and to set up her medical practice and pay her income from time to time, and used it to pay for family holidays. Macaulay J. concluded that the veterinary practice was used as a “personal bank” for the benefit of the family and was thus ordinarily used for family purposes. Additionally, at some point during the marriage the husband started the numbered company that was used to invest the surplus earnings from the practice. The numbered company itself was not ordinarily used for a family purpose. However, the only source of funding for the numbered company was the veterinary practice, which was found to be a family asset. The court therefore concluded that the numbered company was also a family asset.