Proceedings.

Analysis · Outcome brief

Action Flooring: $7,500, and a two-year receivership closes

Ernst & Young collected $801,693.94 of Action Flooring's receivables over two years and settled the last disputed one for $7,500 because the books could not support the claim. On July 17 Justice Marion directed $8,856,289.66 to the Bank of Montreal and set the conditions for discharge.

Proceedings. ·

Three companies and one family business. Action Flooring Ltd. sold and installed flooring in residential and commercial buildings in and around Edmonton. Exclusive Hardwood Flooring Ltd. existed to own one commercial property and lease it to Action — a 4.22-acre site with a 57,221-square-foot small-bay mixed-use building and about 1.64 acres of adjacent land. 811044 Alberta Ltd. owned a three-unit industrial condominium in southeast Edmonton totalling 3,748 square feet and leased it to tenants, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, paras. 2–3.

On March 19, 2024, on the Bank of Montreal's application, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta appointed Ernst & Young Inc. as receiver over all three, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, para. 1.

Two years, in orders

The file's history is legible entirely through what the Court approved, and the sequence is worth reading in order.

July 11, 2024: an auction agreement with McDougall Auctions Ltd., and the sealing of the confidential supplement to the first report. January 22, 2025: bankruptcy orders against Action Flooring and Exclusive Hardwood on BMO's application, with Ernst & Young appointed trustee in both — so the same firm now held two mandates over the same businesses. March 25, 2025: the condominium units sold to Gagliardi Developments Ltd., and the receiver's charge increased to $850,000. November 5, 2025: fees approved, the receiver's charge increased again to $1,100,000, an interim distribution to certain secured creditors, and the Anderson sale agreement approved, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, paras. 5–8.

April 29, 2026 brought the last of the real estate: approval of an asset and real estate purchase agreement between the Receiver and Leder Investments Re Ltd. or its nominee for the Exclusive building, and an order vesting Exclusive's interest in it free and clear of claims but for permitted encumbrances. That transaction closed on June 3, 2026, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, paras. 9, 14(c).

Each of those orders also sealed a confidential supplement — to the first, second, third and fourth reports in turn.

The last receivable

Over the whole of the proceedings the Receiver collected $801,693.94 in accounts receivable. One claim was left, and it was contested, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, paras. 16–17.

The companies' books recorded an amount owing by Lionsgate Builders Corporation. The Receiver sued in the Alberta Court of Justice; Lionsgate filed a dispute note contesting the claim and alleging deficiencies; a mediation was scheduled. Then the Receiver settled, for $7,500 in full and final settlement, payable before its discharge, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, paras. 18–20.

Its stated reasons are the ones any receiver of a wound-up trade business eventually reaches. There was a limited record about the services and products Action had supplied to Lionsgate, or about the deficiencies alleged against them. Pursuing the claim would cost the estate further professional fees and would likely require the receivership to stay open longer than the rest of the file needed. BMO — described as the stakeholder with the primary economic interest in the proceedings — supports the settlement, per Receiver's Fifth Report, June 29, 2026, paras. 20–22.

A flooring installer's receivable is only as good as the paperwork behind the job, and two years after the crews stopped work there was not enough of it to litigate over.

Continue reading

The rest of this analysis is for subscribers. Every fact in it cites the filing it was read from.

Subscribe

Analysis is editorial; every factual claim cites the record. The record itself never editorializes.

Facts and summaries are extracted automatically from the court filings linked on each page; the filings remain the authoritative record. Suggested corrections are reviewed against the source filings.