Tag: market value

DISTRESSED PROPERTY FOR SALE IN ONTARIO: UNDERSTANDING COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVERS AND ASSET VESTING ORDERS – WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO WANTS YOU TO KNOW

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date January 19, 2026

distressed property for sale

By Brandon Smith, LIT, CIRP, Senior Vice-President of Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc.

Distressed Property For Sale Introduction

The idea of finding a “distressed property for sale” can spark a mix of excitement and curiosity. Many see it as a chance to find hidden value in a tough market. However, behind every distressed property sale is often a challenging story of financial strain, requiring a clear and fair solution.

When a company faces deep financial trouble, its assets may need to be sold. This process often involves a court-appointed receiver and specific legal tools, such as an Asset Vesting Order (AVO). These tools ensure fairness and clarity for everyone involved.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we understand these complex situations. We are here to guide you through them. This blog will explain the roles of receivers and AVOs, and delve into a recent and important decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. This decision sheds crucial light on what happens when someone tries to appeal an AVO. We bring expert advice to help you understand your options and rights.

Distressed Property For Sale Key Takeaways

Court-appointed receivers are neutral officers of the court. Their job is to manage and sell assets fairly when someone is in financial distress.
An Asset Vesting Order (AVO) is a court order that legally transfers ownership of an asset. It ensures the buyer gets the asset sold through distress sales, free from past claims. The cash paid by the purchaser replaces the sold asset.
Appealing an AVO is very difficult. Courts prioritize the fairness and finality of sales managed by a receiver.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario case, Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc., shows how important it is to follow strict legal timelines when appealing.
If you are involved in a distressed property for sale situation, whether as a buyer, owner, or creditor, getting expert guidance from a Licensed Insolvency Trustee and an insolvency lawyer is vital.
distressed property for sale

The Landscape of Distressed Property for Sale

“Distressed property for sale” refers to real estate or other assets that are being sold because the owner is under severe financial pressure. This pressure might come from overwhelming debt, a failing business, unpaid mortgages, or other economic hardships. It’s a term that describes assets that need to be sold quickly, often at a potentially reduced price, due to the seller’s urgent financial needs.

For some, buying a distressed property for sale seems like a smart investment, offering a chance to acquire assets at a potentially lower price than what might be found in a regular market. These properties can include homes, commercial buildings, land, or even business assets. The allure is often the prospect of a good deal, especially in a fluctuating real estate market where interest rates and economic shifts can put significant pressure on property owners.

However, these sales are often far more complicated than a typical real estate transaction. They are handled through specific legal processes like foreclosure, power of sale, bankruptcy, or receivership. Each of these paths has its own rules, timelines, and potential risks. These aren’t standard transactions with straightforward negotiations. Instead, they often involve multiple parties – the owner, various creditors, and the legal system – all with different interests and claims.

For the person or business holding the distressed property for sale, it represents significant financial pain. It means they’ve reached a point where they can no longer meet their financial obligations, and selling assets is the only way to try to resolve the situation. This can be a deeply stressful and emotionally taxing experience.

Understanding these processes is key. Without proper knowledge and expert help, even a promising opportunity can turn into a costly mistake for buyers. For sellers and creditors, navigating this landscape without professional guidance can lead to further losses or missed opportunities. At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we regularly see the impacts of financial distress and provide solutions that bring order and fairness to these challenging situations.

Distressed Property For Sale: The Court-Appointed Receiver – An Impartial Steward in Crisis

When financial trouble strikes and assets are at risk, a court may step in and appoint a special party called a court-appointed receiver. A court-appointed receiver’s main job is to manage and sell assets fairly and transparently when a person or business is in severe financial distress.

This person is a neutral professional and can only be a Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT) like Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., whose role is to take control of specific assets or an entire business. We act as an officer of the court, and when in a court-appointed role, we must be impartial and work for the benefit of all parties involved, not just one creditor.

The receiver’s primary goal is to maximize the value from the sale of these assets to pay off debts in an orderly and legally compliant manner.

Receivers are appointed for several reasons, all aimed at bringing order to a chaotic financial situation. These include preserving the value of assets, preventing them from being wasted or misused, ensuring an organized and fair sale process, and ultimately, repaying creditors as much as possible according to their legal priorities. The court steps in to protect the interests of everyone involved – the owner, secured creditors, unsecured creditors, and even employees – by having an independent expert manage the assets.

Their Key Responsibilities in Selling Assets Include:

Taking control: The receiver secures and manages the distressed property or business assets. This might involve changing locks, reviewing financial records, assessing inventory, or taking over the day-to-day operations of a business for a short period. Their immediate action is to protect the assets from further harm or loss.
Valuation: They often hire independent experts, such as real estate appraisers or business valuators, to appraise the assets. This is done to determine their true market value, ensuring that any sale is based on realistic and fair pricing. This step is crucial for demonstrating that the receiver is trying to get the best possible price.
Marketing: Once valued, the receiver actively markets the assets widely to attract the best possible offers. This isn’t just a simple listing; it involves strategic marketing to a broad audience of potential buyers, ensuring a competitive bidding process. This transparency in marketing helps assure all parties that a fair attempt is being made to maximize recovery.
Court Approval: A critical step in the process is that the receiver must ask the court to approve their sales process and each specific sale transaction. This court oversight ensures that the process is fair, transparent, and proper, protecting the interests of all stakeholders. The court reviews the receiver’s efforts to ensure the best price was obtained and that no procedural errors occurred.
Distribution: After a sale is approved and completed, the receiver collects the funds. They then distribute the money to creditors according to legal rules and priorities set out in Canadian insolvency laws. This complex task ensures that everyone with a valid claim gets their rightful share, based on the legal pecking order of creditors.

The court-appointed receiver’s actions are always overseen by the court. This supervision builds confidence among all parties that the process is transparent and just. For any business or individual facing severe financial challenges where assets might need to be sold, working with a court-appointed receiver provides a structured and legally sound path forward. At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., our team has extensive experience acting as court-appointed receivers, bringing both expertise and empathy to these difficult situations.

distressed property for sale

Distressed Property For Sale: Understanding the Asset Vesting Order (AVO)

An Asset Vesting Order (AVO) is a powerful legal tool often used in receivership proceedings. In a receivership, an AVO is critical because it gives the buyer clear legal title to the assets, which means the buyer usually receives the property “free and clear” of any previous claims, liens, or other legal burdens that were on the distressed property for sale before the sale. Essentially, it’s a court order that directly transfers legal ownership of the distressed property for sale from one person or entity to another.

Think of an AVO as a legal “clean slate” for the asset being sold. When a property or asset is sold in a regular transaction, the buyer usually takes it subject to any existing liens, mortgages, or other claims registered against it. In a distressed situation handled by a receiver, however, there are often many such claims. If the buyer had to take on all these existing problems, very few people would want to buy the asset, or they would only offer a very low price. This would defeat the purpose of the receivership, which is to maximize the value from the sale.

The purpose of an AVO in a receivership sale is twofold:

Buyer Certainty: It assures buyers that their purchase is final and that they won’t inherit the previous owner’s debts or legal problems tied to the asset. This certainty makes the distressed assets more attractive to buyers, encouraging competitive bidding and helping the receiver achieve a better sale price. Without this guarantee, buyers would be hesitant, fearing future legal challenges or unexpected liabilities.
Streamlined Sales: It makes it easier to sell assets that might otherwise be held up by complicated legal disputes or claims against them. By wiping the slate clean, the AVO removes obstacles that could delay or even prevent a sale, allowing the receiver to move quickly and efficiently. This is especially important when asset values might be declining.
Converting Claims: The AVO essentially shifts the creditors’ claims from the actual assets to the money received from the sale. Instead of having a claim against the specific property, creditors now have a claim against the pool of money generated by the sale. This money is then divided among creditors based on legal priorities, such as who has a secured interest, what type of debt it is, and the order in which claims were registered. This process ensures an equitable distribution of proceeds, even if some specific claims on the asset are extinguished.

The power of an AVO is immense, but it is always granted by a court after careful consideration. The court ensures that the receiver has acted properly and that the sale process is fair. This legal tool is a cornerstone of effective receivership, enabling the orderly resolution of complex financial distress. At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we understand the nuances of AVOs and how they impact all parties in an insolvency proceeding.

Appealing an AVO: The Court’s Strict Approach

While it’s theoretically possible to appeal a court order made during a receivership, challenging a sale approval and an Asset Vesting Order (AVO) is extremely difficult. The courts have a very high standard for such appeals, often prioritizing the finality of the sale. This strict approach is not arbitrary; it’s fundamental to the integrity and effectiveness of the insolvency system.

Why Courts Uphold Finality:

Integrity of the Process: The court system relies on its processes being seen as fair and final. Overturning a sale that has been approved by a court undermines confidence in the entire receivership system, which is designed to resolve financial distress efficiently and predictably. If every sale could be easily challenged, the whole system would become bogged down in endless disputes, rendering it ineffective.
Maximizing Value: Delays caused by appeals can make assets lose value. For example, if a property’s market value drops during a prolonged appeal, or if a business asset deteriorates, it hurts all creditors who are hoping to recover funds. Receivership aims for a quick and decisive sale to preserve and maximize asset value for creditors.
Buyer Certainty: Buyers who purchase assets through a court-approved process need to be sure that their new ownership won’t be undone by a later appeal. Without this certainty, fewer buyers would be willing to participate in court-supervised sales, leading to lower prices for distressed assets. This would be detrimental to the creditors, as they would recover less money. Buyers need to know that once they buy, the asset is truly theirs, free from ongoing legal challenges. This confidence is what drives competitive bids and ensures that receivers can effectively liquidate assets.

When deciding whether to approve a receiver’s sale, Ontario courts often refer to the “Soundair Test.” This test comes from the case Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. and provides a framework for the court’s review. It guides the court to consider:

(a) if the receiver made enough effort to get the best price, meaning they conducted a thorough marketing process to attract qualified buyers and maximize the sale price; and
(b) if the receiver acted properly and not carelessly, which means the receiver followed all legal procedures, acted impartially, and fulfilled their duties responsibly.

To succeed in an appeal against a sale approval or an AVO, a party generally needs to prove a major mistake by the initial judge, a deeply flawed sales process (such as a failure by the receiver to properly market the assets), or significant unfairness that fundamentally compromised the integrity of the sale. The bar for success is set very high, and simply believing a better price could have been obtained is usually not enough. The appellant must demonstrate a serious error in principle or a clear misapprehension of the facts by the lower court.

This strict approach brings us to a crucial Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc. This case vividly illustrates the court’s commitment to finality and the procedural hurdles involved in challenging an AVO. Understanding this strictness is vital for anyone involved with a distressed property for sale, whether as a buyer, an owner, or a creditor. Our team at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. guides clients through these stringent legal requirements, ensuring they understand the reality of their position.

distressed property for sale

Distressed Property For Sale Case Study: Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc., 2026 ONCA 22

(CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/khldq)

Background and Factual Context

On July 31, 2023, the moving party corporations were placed under receivership control. At the time of receivership, these entities owned and operated an events centre located in Toronto. On January 16, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made an unopposed order authorizing the Receiver to sell the property. After approximately two years on the market, the Receiver entered into an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) with a buyer on August 13, 2025.

Lower Court Proceedings

The Receiver brought a motion before Justice Myers seeking an approval and vesting order (AVO) to close the sale. On October 28, 2025, Justice Myers granted the motion, applying the “Soundair principles“. The motion judge found that the Receiver’s decision to accept the offer was reasonable because:
The offer was unconditional and fell within a narrow range of three other offers received.
It was obtained after responsible marketing efforts in the absence of bad faith.
The offers themselves provided a better indication of current market value than earlier appraisals, which had anticipated a higher valuation.
The Receiver was not acting improvidently.

Procedural Issues on Appeal

A critical issue arose regarding the appellants’ failure to meet procedural deadlines. Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act rules, the appeal period for receivership orders is only 10 days. Although the moving parties attempted to initiate an appeal within the deadline, they erroneously filed in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

After being advised of the correct jurisdiction, they eventually submitted an updated motion for leave to appeal, but it was rejected by the Registrar for having “too many deficiencies with the materials.” Subsequently, on December 23, 2025, the moving parties brought a motion for an extension of time to file the appeal, coupled with a motion for a stay of the approval and vesting order.

Motion 1: Extension of Time to File a Motion for Leave to Appeal

The Court of Appeal applied the test from Shaver-Kudell Manufacturing Inc. v. Knight Manufacturing Inc. (2021 ONCA 202), which requires consideration of:

A bona fide intention to appeal during the appeal period.
The length and explanation for the delay.
Prejudice against the responding party.
The merits of the proposed appeal.

Decision: Motion dismissed. While the moving parties had demonstrated an intention to appeal, Justice Paciocco found that:

The explanation for the delay was inadequate. The moving parties failed to provide affidavit evidence addressing the legal tests for an extension, relying instead on “bald assertions about unspecified errrs caused by court staff.”
Unexplained delay: The delay of approximately 40 days (nearly four times the 10-day period) was unexplained and unjustified.
Substantial prejudice accrued to the Receiver. The APS contained a condition precedent that would be breached if an appeal or threatened appeal restricted closing. Additionally, the moving parties’ principal’s conduct in publicly disclosing confidential information about the sale price and marketing details would prejudice any future bidding process if the proposed sale fell through.
The receiver continues to bear the carrying costs of the distressed property for sale until the sale is completed.

Merit Assessment: Justice Paciocco also found the proposed appeal lacked merit. The moving parties’ grounds fell into two categories: (a) claims of procedural unfairness related to the removal of counsel, and (b) attempts to re-argue the motion by challenging the providence of the sale, alleging conflicts of interest and valuation irregularities. The Court found that:

The procedural fairness submissions lacked supporting material and detail.
The substantive grounds failed to identify any legal errors or palpable and overriding errors of fact.
The submissions simply represented disagreement with the motion judge’s conclusions, which would be entitled to deference on appeal.

Motion 2: Stay Pending Appeal

Decision: Motion dismissed. Once the extension of time motion was dismissed, there was no valid appeal pending before the Court, eliminating the Court’s jurisdiction to grant a stay under Rule 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Even if jurisdiction existed, Justice Paciocco would have dismissed the stay motion because:

The moving parties failed to raise a serious issue to be decided on appeal.
Any harm from the pending sale (the building being put out of reach) was not clearly non-compensable.
The balance of convenience favoured the Receiver and creditors, given that a delay to the sale would be prejudicial to the receivership estate.

Procedural Notes

The moving partie’s principal, though not a lawyer, had been granted leave by a different judge to represent the moving party corporations before the Superior Court on October 8, 2025.
Justice Paciocco noted that self-represented litigants, like all parties, have an obligation to familiarize themselves with relevant procedures.
No costs order was made, as the Receiver did not request one.

Disposition

Both of the moving parties’ motions were dismissed.

Professional Significance

This decision illustrates the strict temporal requirements in insolvency proceedings, designed to discourage delay and maintain the integrity of receivership sales. It also demonstrates the court’s deference to a receiver’s business judgment in accepting conditional offers within a reasonable range of other bids, provided the receiver has undertaken responsible marketing efforts absent bad faith. The case underscores the significant risks posed by disclosure of confidential sale information and the procedural barriers faced by self-represented parties in appellate proceedings.

Comparison Table Section: Key Players in Insolvency – Receiver and Other Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT) Roles

Understanding the various roles in financial distress is important. While a court-appointed receiver is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT), their specific functions can differ depending on the type of insolvency proceeding. It’s crucial to recognize these distinctions, as they impact how assets are managed and debts are resolved. Both roles are vital in the Canadian insolvency system, but they serve different primary purposes and are governed by different sets of rules and circumstances.

Here’s a comparison to clarify their distinct, though sometimes overlapping, responsibilities:

Feature	Court-Appointed Receiver (a LIT)	Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT) (e.g., in consumer proposal or bankruptcy)
Primary Role	Manages specific assets or an entire business, usually to sell them and pay creditors. Their focus is asset realization.	Administers formal debt relief processes like consumer proposals, financial restructuring and bankruptcies for individuals and corporations. Their focus is on debt restructuring or liquidation.
Appointment	Appointed by a court order (under the Courts of Justice Act and BIA, or equitable powers), or by a secured creditor through a private agreement.	Appointed by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB), a federal regulator, to administer BIA proceedings.
Scope of Work	Takes control, manages, and sells specific assets or a business to maximize recovery for creditors, primarily secured creditors. Can also manage the business.	Helps debtors find debt solutions, negotiates with creditors, manages bankrupt estates, and distributes proceeds to all creditors according to the BIA.
Primary Goal	Maximize recovery for secured creditors by realizing on assets efficiently and according to court direction. Often asset-specific.	Fairly administers assets for all creditors and provides a financial fresh start for debtors (if applicable). Oversees the entire debt resolution process.
Who They Help	Primarily secured creditors looking to recover their loans, but indirectly benefits all stakeholders by ensuring an orderly and transparent process.	Individuals and businesses struggling with debt can be offered solutions, and creditors can obtain a fair distribution according to the BIA.
Legislation	Governed by the provincial Courts of Justice Act, the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), and sometimes specific contractual agreements.	Strictly governed by the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).
Officer Of	The Court (for court-appointed receivers) or a secured creditor (for private receivers).	The Court and the OSB (a federal regulator). They owe duties to all creditors and the debtor.

Only LITs can act as court-appointed receivers. Their specific powers and duties in a receivership come from the court order or private agreement, not directly from their LIT license for a BIA proceeding. An LIT acting in a consumer proposal or bankruptcy has a broader mandate concerning all creditors and the debtor’s overall financial situation, guided strictly by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., our team consists of experienced Licensed Insolvency Trustees who are qualified to act for a creditor. You receive the most appropriate and effective advice for your unique situation. We bridge the gap between complex legal frameworks and practical solutions.

distressed property for sale

Distressed Property For Sale FAQ Section

Q: What exactly is a distressed property for sale?

A: A distressed property is typically real estate or a business asset that must be sold quickly due to the owner’s severe financial problems. These problems might include unmanageable debt, mortgage default, a failing business, or other economic hardships. The sale is driven by a need for funds rather than a strategic decision, and often occurs through formal legal processes like receivership or bankruptcy.

Q: Can I buy a distressed property for sale directly from a receiver?

A: While you can’t typically “bargain” directly in a private sale sense, a receiver is legally bound to market properties widely to get the highest possible price for the creditors. As a buyer, you would submit an offer, usually through standard real estate channels, to the receiver. This offer, along with others, would then be presented to the court for its approval. The court will ensure the receiver acted diligently to obtain the best offer.

Q: What happens if I try to appeal an AVO, based on the TD case?

A: The TD case clearly shows that even if your appeal has legal merit, it will likely be dismissed if it’s not filed within the strict legal deadlines. For sale approval orders and AVOs under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, this deadline is often just 10 days. Courts prioritize the finality and efficiency of these sales to ensure market stability and recover value for creditors.

Q: How long does a receivership process usually take?

A: The length of a receivership varies greatly depending on the complexity of the assets and the financial situation. Simple cases involving easily liquidated assets might be resolved in a few months. However, complex situations with many assets, ongoing legal disputes, environmental issues, or the need to operate a business before sale can take several years. Each receivership is unique.

Q: When should I contact a Licensed Insolvency Trustee like Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc.?

A: You should contact us as soon as you recognize signs of financial difficulty, whether for yourself or your business. This applies whether you’re an individual struggling with overwhelming debt, a business owner facing insolvency, a creditor looking to recover funds, or even an interested party in distressed asset sales. Early professional advice is always the most effective strategy to understand your options, protect your interests, and work towards a solution. Waiting too long can limit your choices and worsen the situation.

Brandon’s Take:

Navigating financial distress, whether you’re a business owner facing tough decisions, a creditor trying to recover what’s owed, or an investor looking at a “distressed property for sale,” can feel overwhelming. It’s a complex landscape filled with legal jargon and strict rules. The TD decision is a powerful reminder of how critical both the substance and the procedure are in insolvency proceedings. It teaches us that even when there’s a good argument on the core legal issue, missing a deadline can swiftly end your chances. This underscores the necessity of immediate, informed action when dealing with court orders in receivership.

This case reinforces that courts are committed to the integrity and finality of court-supervised sales. They want processes to be fair, but also efficient and conclusive. This gives stability to the market and ensures that when a receiver sells an asset, the deal is truly done, providing certainty for buyers and maximum recovery for creditors. The strictness isn’t to be punitive; it’s to ensure the system works effectively for everyone.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we understand the human element behind these legal and financial challenges. We know that these situations can be incredibly stressful, filled with uncertainty and fear. Our role in the Greater Toronto Area is to bring clarity, expertise, and a non-judgmental approach to help you understand your options. We ensure that your rights are protected and that you make informed decisions, whether you’re dealing with personal or business debt, considering a receivership, or exploring buying assets from one. Don’t navigate this alone; professional guidance is your strongest ally to achieve a clear path forward.

distressed property for sale

Distressed Property For Sale Conclusion: Your Clear Path Forward

The world of distressed property sales, court-appointed receivers, and Asset Vesting Orders is complex, but it doesn’t have to be a mystery. We’ve seen how court-appointed receivers act as crucial, neutral figures, ensuring assets are sold fairly and transparently to maximize recovery for creditors. We’ve also learned about the power of AVOs to provide a clear title to buyers, making these sales viable. Most importantly, we’ve understood the strong emphasis courts place on the finality and procedural correctness of these sales, as vividly highlighted by the Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc. case. Missing a deadline, no matter how strong your argument, can be fatal to your case.

Whether you are a business owner facing insolvency, a creditor seeking recovery of funds, or an individual considering a distressed property purchase, understanding these legal frameworks and the strict timelines involved is absolutely essential. More importantly, having the right expert by your side can make all the difference, transforming confusion into clarity and stress into solutions.

Don’t navigate the complexities of financial distress or distressed asset sales on your own. The team at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. consists of experienced Licensed Insolvency Trustees who can provide the authoritative, actionable, and empathetic advice you need. We offer confidential, no-obligation consultations to discuss your specific situation and help you understand all your options.

Contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. today. Let us provide you with the professional guidance and peace of mind you deserve during these challenging times. We can help you achieve a financial fresh start and ensure you make the best decisions for your future.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is licensed by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and is a member of the Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals.

Phone: 905.738.4167
Toronto line: 647.799.3312
Website: https://irasmithinc.com/
Email: brandon@irasmithinc.com

——————————————————————————–

Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational purposes only and is based on the cited sources and my professional expertise as a licensed insolvency trustee. The information provided does not constitute legal or financial advice for your specific circumstances.

Every situation is unique and involves complex legal and factual considerations. The outcomes discussed in this article may not apply to your particular situation. Situations are fact-specific and depend on the particular circumstances of each case.

Please contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. or consult with qualified legal or financial professionals regarding your specific matter before making any decisions.

About the Author:

Brandon Smith is a Senior Vice-President at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. and a licensed insolvency trustee serving clients across Ontario. With extensive experience in complex court-ordered receivership administration and corporate insolvency & restructuring proceedings, Brandon helps businesses, creditors, and professionals navigate challenging financial situations to achieve optimal outcomes.

Brandon stays current with landmark developments in Canadian insolvency law. He brings this cutting-edge knowledge to every client engagement, ensuring his clients benefit from the most current understanding of their rights and options.

distressed property for sale

Brandon Blog Post

DEFAULTING ON A MORTGAGE: THE BEST COURT-APPROVED WAY TO DEBT FREEDOM IN 2020 & BEYOND

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date September 23, 2020

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

Defaulting on a mortgage introduction

I just finished reading a defaulting on a mortgage decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released on September 15, 2020. It had to do with a person who had filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The court case is about the debtor who could not afford to pay all the mortgages on her home. The home was sold on a conditional basis, and a dispute occurred between two potential purchasers. I describe below how the court dealt with the dispute.

That case highlighted for me three things:

what we advise everyone who comes to us for a no-cost initial consultation who cannot afford to keep paying a loan registered against an asset, normally a vehicle or house;
how sometimes a strategic default on a mortgage or vehicle loan can help someone in dealing with all of their debts when they are about to file either a proposal or for bankruptcy; and
the appropriate manner (in my view) the court decided to resolve the dispute between the two potential purchasers.

Defaulting on a mortgage: What we advise debtors

Whenever someone comes to us for a no-cost consultation, we first get financial information from them. We want to understand the nature of their assets and liabilities and their household income and expenses. Through our analysis and discussion, we determine if the person can afford to keep paying that loan or mortgage. We also ask them, if appropriate, are they happy with the asset if it seems that they are paying too much based on the level of secured debt and the market value of the asset.

If the person says they would love to get rid of the asset, that they have no or little equity in, then we look at the impact of using defaulting on a mortgage as a strategic default so that any shortfall experienced by the lender will be an ordinary unsecured debt which can be discharged through either a proposal or bankruptcy.

Obviously, the person has to have a realistic option to replace that asset or have an alternate plan:

Can they lease a different vehicle at a lesser cost before filing which they can afford and therefore will not default on?
Is public transit a realistic option as opposed to having their own vehicle for the time being?
Is there a relative who will co-sign for them so that they can lease or buy a more reasonable cost vehicle?
Can they rent somewhere that they can afford for much less than what they have been paying on their home and then look at buying something after they are through their debt restructuring when they are back on their feet?

As I said, we do this all the time when working with people to look at all of their options for financial restructuring. We especially look at in the case of a home, does defaulting on a mortgage make financial sense?

Defaulting on a mortgage: What is a strategic default?

When the market value of your home is less than the amount owed on the mortgage, that mortgage debt is underwater. To put it simply, an underwater home mortgage loan has a higher remaining principal balance than the value of the house.

Homeowners with little or negative home equity can find themselves in this situation when housing prices fall, even if they are current on all their payments. It’s also described as being “upside-down” or having “negative equity” in the residence.

When it doesn’t make sense to keep using your cash to stay current on that underwater mortgage, rather than using that money for other necessary expenses, defaulting on a mortgage as a strategic default may be your only option. After establishing that you can’t see your property rising in value in a reasonable period to restore some of your equity, you may plan to just stop making mortgage repayments. You’ll default and eventually, the lender will enforce on its mortgage, take over the property and sell it.

Even if you have equity in the home, but you can no longer afford to keep up the payments, you may find that putting your home up for sale is your best option. Again, you need to have a realistic plan in place on where you will live once your home sells. Depending on the situation, you might decide to also create a strategic default by defaulting on a mortgage at the same time you list your home for sale. Once sold, the net proceeds of the sale, representing the equity in the home, can be used to help fund the proposal.

During the financial crisis in the United States, a strategic default on underwater homes by defaulting on a mortgage became progressively typical. Such home loans came to a head at 26 percent of all mortgaged homes in 2009. Many house owners did the math and made the agonizing however rational decision to leave the home and let the lender deal with the property and its underwater mortgage.

As I explain in the next section, in most cases, you can just walk away from such a loan in the United States. Unfortunately, it is not so easy for Canadians to walk away from their homes and defaulting on a mortgage. But there is one way to do it in Ontario.

Defaulting on a mortgage: Walking away from a mortgage in Canada is not simple

In the United States, it is normal for a mortgage to be “non-recourse“. What this means is that the lender can only look to the value of the property it has mortgage security against to repay the mortgage loan. If the lender suffers a shortfall, unless there is a separate guarantee given, the lender cannot sue the mortgagor, the borrower, for any shortfall. So if you have negative equity, defaulting on a mortgage may be the right decision for such a US resident.

In Canada, it is normal for a mortgage to be “full recourse“. This means that if the lender suffers a shortfall on the mortgage debt, the terms of the mortgage loan automatically allows the mortgagee, the lender, to go to court and get a judgment against the borrower for the amount of the shortfall. So defaulting on a mortgage needs to be done in conjunction with a plan to deal with the shortfall debt.

For this reason, walking away from a mortgage in Canada is not simple. However, there is one way to do it. Once the shortfall is known and, either before or right after the lender gets a judgment, the debtor can file a proposal under the BIA to restructure all their unsecured debt. If that is not practical, then bankruptcy is the other option.

Now the shortfall is caught in the insolvency proceeding. The filing invokes an automatic stay of proceedings so that the lender cannot take action to try to execute against any of the assets or income of the debtor who has filed. The debt is caught in the insolvency proceeding and will be dealt with in that forum.

Defaulting on a mortgage: The first sale

The court case deals with a woman in Ontario who had begun a proposal process under the BIA. The debtor owned (at least) two residential properties. The property in question had 4 mortgages registered against it. The other property had multiple mortgages against it, including a mortgage as additional security for the 4th mortgage loan against the property in question. To make matters worse, there was also a lien registered against the same residential property in favour of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in the amount of $308,258.

The 4th mortgage was totally underwater. The debtor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale. The sale of the home would result in a shortfall of over $700,000. It would not provide any funds for the 4th mortgage. It would only partially repay the 3rd mortgage. So, one of the conditions of sale was that the vendor would either get a discharge of all of the mortgages or a court order vesting title in the home to the purchaser clear of all mortgages and other registrations against the title. The 4th mortgagee’s charge against the other home, which was also in 4th position, was also totally underwater.

As part of the proposal proceedings, the debtor brought a motion to the court to approve the sale (supported by appraisals) and get the vesting order to vest title clear of all registrations against the title. The debtor was not only going to be defaulting on a mortgage but on at least 2 of them!

Defaulting on a mortgage: The 4th mortgagee opposes the sale approval motion

The 4^th mortgagee appeared at the motion with her lawyer to get an adjournment in order to oppose the authorization and vesting order and enable her to acquire the home on the same terms but also for even more money. This would enable the 4^th mortgagee to possibly recover something on her outstanding mortgage loan at a later date.

The purchaser or the purchaser’s lawyer was not told in advance that there was going to be an opposition to the application. Therefore, the purchaser’s lawyer did not attend the hearing.

At the hearing, the court authorized the sale and vesting order yet suspended its issuance for 9 days to allow the 4^th mortgagee the chance to make an offer. She did, on the very same terms yet $5,000 greater than the approved offer. She also had the deposit funds put into her lawyer’s trust account. She then made a motion for the approval of her offer and vesting order. Not surprisingly, and as to be expected, the first purchaser objected to her motion.

Defaulting on a mortgage: What the court decided

The 4^th mortgagee’s lawyer argued that the first purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale is nullified since there was neither discharges provided nor a binding court order vesting title free and clear from all mortgages and the CRA registration by the closing date. Therefore, it cannot now come to court and try to extend the closing of a deal that is already dead.

Legal counsel for the first purchaser argued that if the court approves the 4^th mortgagee as the buyer, the sales procedure will be unfair. The first purchaser was not notified that there would be any type of objection to its motion for the approval and vesting order of its deal. Although the first purchaser can be criticized for not keeping up with what was happening both before and on the date of its court motion, it is still a good-faith buyer who took part in a fair sales process. The 4^th mortgagee had every right to bid on the subject property when it was initially listed and did not do so.

The court decided that ultimately, this situation boils down to the process being fair and seen as being fair. So given all of this, the court decided:

All previous agreements of purchase and sale for the subject property are terminated.
A new sales process will be carried out where any of the interested parties, being the first purchaser and the 4^th mortgagee, can send their best offers to the Trustee, on a confidential basis.
The offers are to be submitted and evaluated by the Trustee by September 18, 2020, with the closing of September 25, 2020.
In the event, the winning bid is not able to close on September 25, 2020, the other party may purchase the property.
If court approval of the successful offer and a vesting order is needed, a draft order may be provided to the court.
The proceeds of the sale, presumably net of the realtor commission, the vendor’s real estate legal fees, and any HST that may be applicable on the sale, are to be paid into court in order to figure out the proper amount and priority of the charges against the property.

As neither side was totally successful, the court did not award costs to any party. This seems to be the fairest outcome to all concerned.

Defaulting on a mortgage: A proposal is your best option

So as you can see, it is possible to use the proposal process under the BIA either to sell a home you can no longer afford to keep which has equity. The net sales proceeds can be used to partially fund the proposal. A proposal under the BIA is the only government-approved debt settlement plan.

Alternatively, you can use the proposal process to sell the home where you are defaulting on a mortgage where there are one or more mortgages underwater. The proposal process will compromise the resulting ordinary unsecured debt arising from the shortfall claim of underwater mortgage lenders. An application can be made to the court for an order approving the sales process, the sale, and obtaining a vesting order to complete the sale.

We have helped many people and companies do exactly that when defaulting on a mortgage.

Defaulting on a mortgage summary

I hope you have enjoyed this defaulting on a mortgage Brandon’s Blog. Hopefully, you have better insight now into the fact that there is a way to get out of a secured loan, especially a mortgage. It will require an insolvency proceeding to settle all your debts, including any shortfall on the sale of the secured asset.

Do you have too much debt? Are you in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt.

You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges.
It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. The way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan, we know that we can help you.

We know that people facing financial problems need realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.
Call us now for a free consultation.

We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

Tags Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, court, court order, defaulting on a mortgage, financial information, full recourse mortgage, Ira Smith Trustee, market value, negative equity, non recourse, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, proposal, sale approval, sales process approval', strategic default, underwater mortgage, vesting order

Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT: COURT MAY NOT LISTEN TO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date June 6, 2018

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: Introduction

I want to describe to you a very interesting case that was recently decided in the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Randen v. HPCB-Online Ltd., 2018 BCCA 123 (CanLII). The bankrupt’s creditors applied to have the transactions reviewed under section I00 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”). One of the areas of contention was that the judge in the lower court found he could not rely on the bankruptcy trustee’s opinion of value in the circumstances.

The applicants, Shawn and Edvige Cody, were the principals of the bankrupt, Half Price Computer Books Ltd. (“Half Price”) and the applicant HPCB-Online Ltd. (“Online”). About ten days before Half Price was assigned into bankruptcy, Online bought roughly 10% of the book inventory of Half Price.

The application under s.100 was originally made by the bankruptcy trustee, and later transferred to creditors David Randen, The Innovative Alliance Inc., J.R. Trading Co. Inc. and Fairmount Books Inc. under section 38 of the BIA. The lower court judge found Online acquired property from Half Price at much less than reasonable market value. The lower court judge ordered Online and the Codys to pay back the difference which he established to be $287,000.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: Section 100

Section 100 of the BIA. The section was repealed in 2009, but applies on transactions before then. The main purpose of that section was for reversing the effects of non-arm’s length transactions that reduced value from the estate of a bankrupt person or company.

Until 2009, s. 100 of the BIA provided:

“100 (1) Where a bankrupt sold, purchased, leased, hired, supplied or received property or services in a reviewable transaction within the period beginning on the day that is one year before the date of the bankruptcy event and ending on the date of the bankruptcy, both dates included, the court may, on the application of the trustee, inquire into whether the bankrupt gave or received, as the case may be, fair market value in consideration for the property or services concerned in the transaction.

(2) Where the court in proceedings under this section finds that the consideration given or received by the bankrupt in the reviewable transaction was conspicuously greater or less than the fair market value of the property or services concerned in the transaction, the court may give judgment to the trustee against the other party to the transaction, against any other person being privy to the transaction with the bankrupt or against all those persons for the difference between the actual consideration given or received by the bankrupt and the fair market value, as determined by the court, of the property or services concerned in the transaction.”

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The questionable transaction

The brand-new company Online bought roughly 10% of Half Price’s stock, or 44,000 books. These books were clearly selected by Mr. Cody as the best-selling. Online paid $21,964.50 for these books, about $0.50 CDN for each publication. The books and records of Half Price, including an e-commerce website which Half Price created at its expense and was the property of Half Price, were copied and used by Online to aid in the sale of these publications at the instructions of Mr. Cody.

The Half Price sorting software and mailing software program that was later used to retail these books by Online, which software was the property of Half Price, was duplicated and taken or transferred to Online. Additionally, there was a claim that the goodwill of Half Price was made use by Online. There was no evidence that Online paid anything for the use of the software and goodwill. bankruptcy and insolvency act 1

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The lower court’s first problem

The lower court found that Online paid conspicuously much less compared to fair market value. It must pay to the bankruptcy Estate for the benefit of the creditors which he determined to be $287,000. The lower court judge noted that this was not a case in which the trustee was driving the application. The trustee assigned the action to specific creditors.

Normally, the bankruptcy trustee would have to submit evidence to the court in a section 100 application as to the value of the property in question. Since the trustee had assigned its interest to specific creditors, there was no report from the trustee. The creditors said the value of the joint assets is close to $1.07 million. The lower court had to look at the trustee’s actions in determining what the trustee must have thought the value was.

The lower court acknowledged the need in s. 100 to accept the trustee’s viewpoint about the value, unless other values are confirmed. The court however discovered it could not depend on that viewpoint in this case. The first problem was that they were standing in the place of the trustee. The trustee had determined that the software and other assets was of no value. In addition, the trustee did not figure out that there was any kind of goodwill value to this.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The lower court’s second problem

The second problem was that Half Price could have moved the best publications to Online at the direction of the Codys. The remaining books, being 90% of the book inventory, sold for around the same value as the 10% of publications. Though this is not entirely determinative of worth, it shows that the inventory, software and goodwill was not as valuable as these creditors represented to the lower court..

The BIA required the lower court judge to accept the trustee‘s viewpoint as to the value, or in this situation the point of view of those creditors, unless other values can be confirmed. The lower court considered the trustee’s activity when the bankruptcy first happened, that those assets had no value. The lower court found that it could not rely on any trustee viewpoint on worth.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a trustee in bankruptcy is an officer of the court and has an obligation to offer all relevant facts to the court in a dispassionate, non-adversarial fashion. It went on to say that the creditors do not have the same responsibilities. They got the right to pursue the proceedings in their very own passionate way. The Court of Appeal went on to say that it was open to the court to decline the trustee’s opinion on the evaluation of a fair market price.

The Court of Appeal finally concluded that although the Court did not have to accept the trustee’s opinion of value, there was insufficient evidence for the lower court judge to place a value. So the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial in the lower court. Now both the creditors, and certainly the trustee, will have to submit evidence about what the fair market value was, in their respective opinion. That way, the lower court will be able to rely on experts, an officer of the court and real evidence.

Bankruptcy and insolvency act: The licensed insolvency trustee

Licensed insolvency trustee is the relatively new name for a bankruptcy trustee. Is your company experiencing financial problems? Are you, or somebody you care about, experiencing personal financial problems?

Bankruptcy is the last thing we try to do for a company or person in financial difficulty. If caught early enough, we can get involved in a turnaround situation for your company to keep jobs and value. We also carry out debt settlement plans for people.

If you’ve personally fallen victim to money mistakes and are in pain and stressed out, it’s time for professional help now too.

The Ira Smith Team knows that you are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being. The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points.

Contact the Ira Smith Team today. We know how to solve both corporate and personal financial challenges, remove your pain and put things back on a healthy path. Contact us today for your free consultation so that we can save your company, Starting Over Starting Now.

bankruptcy and insolvency act

Tags Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, debt settlement, goodiwill, insolvency, Ira Smith Trustee, licensed insolvency trustee, licensed trustee, market value, reviewable transaction, s. 100, section 100, trustee, turnaround