Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Unjust enrichment was established against Ms. Sidhu and Real Deal for $550,000 in cheques paid by Avis, as neither party's claimed purpose for the payments was accepted by the Court.

• The purported sale of the Property's beneficial interest from Real Deal to Ms. Sidhu in September 2020 for $2,700,000 was declared invalid because Avis, the other beneficial owner, did not consent.

• Application of the Partition of Property Act (s. 6) compelled the sale of the Property, with proceeds distributed based on unequal contributions despite equal 50% beneficial ownership.

• Occupational rent was awarded to Avis for the Sidhus' unauthorized occupation of the Property since November 2020, calculated at $167,554 for the initial period plus $3,106 per month thereafter.

• Real Deal's position on the Cheques was found to be knowingly inconsistent with Mr. Sidhu's pleadings in a separate Tax Action, raising abuse of process concerns.

• The application by Ms. Sidhu and Real Deal to reopen the trial and defer the unjust enrichment claim pending the Tax Action was dismissed, as no miscarriage of justice was identified.

The family property venture and its unraveling

This case involves a dispute between family members over a residential property on Woodwards Road in Richmond, British Columbia. Kuljit Dhillon, the principal of Avis Homes Limited, partnered with his brother-in-law, Balraj Sidhu, the principal of Real Deal Homes Limited, and his sister, Karamjeet Kaur Sidhu, who acted as an agent for Real Deal. Prior to 2016, the two companies had successfully developed five or six residential properties together. In early 2016, they agreed to purchase and redevelop the Property under a "50-50 partnership" arrangement.

The purchase and redevelopment

The Property was purchased on April 29, 2016, in Ms. Sidhu's name. Avis contributed $465,000, Ms. Sidhu contributed $424,958.84, and a mortgage of $1,560,000 was obtained from Khalsa Credit Union. Construction began in about September 2016 and was completed in February 2018, with redevelopment costs totalling $1,024,283.09. Real Deal was primarily responsible for the redevelopment, and Avis did not contribute funds during construction, though Mr. Dhillon testified he provided expertise and services. The Property was listed for sale at $4,480,000 but received no offers between February 2018 and March 2020, despite several price reductions.

The disputed cheques

A central issue at trial concerned two cheques totalling $550,000 that Mr. Dhillon paid to Ms. Sidhu — $300,000 in December 2018 and $250,000 in May 2019. Avis claimed these were contributions to redevelopment expenses, while Real Deal and Ms. Sidhu argued they were payments related to a tax liability arising from a CRA audit of other properties the parties had developed together. The Court found that neither position was fully established. Text messages showed Mr. Dhillon knew the funds would be used to pay Mr. Sidhu's taxes and that he deliberately labelled them as "loans" to avoid CRA scrutiny. However, the Court also found that Mr. Dhillon was not paying pursuant to a legal obligation. Critically, Real Deal's position in this case was found to be knowingly inconsistent with Mr. Sidhu's pleadings in a separate Tax Action where he alleged that Mr. Dhillon had failed to reimburse him for any of the tax debts.

The invalid sale and unauthorized occupation

On September 9, 2020, Real Deal purported to convey the beneficial interest in the Property to Ms. Sidhu for $2,700,000 without Avis's consent. The Court concluded this sale was not valid because Real Deal did not hold a 100% beneficial interest in the Property. Despite Mr. Dhillon's explicit objections, the Sidhus moved into the Property in November 2020 and have continued to reside there. The Court found they had no legal entitlement to do so.

Application of the Partition of Property Act

Having found that both parties held equal 50% beneficial ownership interests, the Court applied section 6 of the Partition of Property Act. Real Deal argued that because Avis's financial contributions were disproportionately small — less than 25% of total costs — a sale should be refused. The Court rejected this, finding that unequal contributions could be addressed through an unequal division of proceeds rather than by refusing the sale. The Property was ordered sold, with Avis to receive $469,140.37 less 50% of any total loss on the Property, and Real Deal to receive the balance.

The post-trial applications

Following the July 2025 trial judgment, two applications came before the Court in February 2026. Ms. Sidhu and Real Deal sought to reopen the trial and defer the unjust enrichment claim pending resolution of the Tax Action, arguing it would be a miscarriage of justice to enforce the $550,000 award while Mr. Dhillon's liability for the tax debt remained undetermined. The Court dismissed this application, clarifying that its findings did not determine whether Mr. Dhillon was or was not liable for the tax debt — only that the tax debt was not the reason the Cheques were provided. The Court also noted that pretrial security for judgment is generally not available in Canadian jurisprudence.

GST and occupational rent determinations

On Avis's application, the Court addressed issues not dealt with in the original reasons. First, the GST paid on the purported September 2020 sale was found to have been triggered by Ms. Sidhu's unauthorized occupation of the house and her ultimately unsuccessful claim that the beneficial interest in the Property had been sold to her. It was ruled not to be a shared redevelopment expense. Second, the Court awarded occupational rent to Avis based on expert evidence, ultimately uncontested, calculated at $167,554 (50% of $335,108) for the period from November 1, 2020, to April 1, 2025, and $3,106 (50% of $6,212) per month thereafter, subject to offsets for contributions made by the Sidhus. The parties also agreed under the slip rule that Avis was entitled to prejudgment interest on the unjust enrichment award as of September 7, 2022, and to a share of 50% of any profit on the Property's eventual sale.

The ruling and outcome

In the original trial, the Court found that success was divided, as neither party's position with respect to the most contentious issue — the purpose of the Cheques — was accepted. No costs were ordered at trial, with each party to bear its own costs. Nevertheless, the Court ordered the sale of the Property under the PPA, awarded Avis $469,140.37 from the sale proceeds (less 50% of any loss), and held Ms. Sidhu and Real Deal jointly liable to Avis for $550,000 in unjust enrichment. In the subsequent applications, Avis was substantially successful, having succeeded on two of the three main issues raised by it. The Court dismissed Real Deal's motion to reopen, awarded occupational rent to Avis, ruled the GST was not a shared expense, and ordered costs of both applications payable by Ms. Sidhu and Real Deal to Avis at Scale B in any event of the cause. The exact total amount ultimately recoverable by Avis cannot be precisely determined at this stage, as it depends on the final sale price of the Property, the Registrar's certification of line of credit interest, and the determination of valid offsets against occupational rent.