Baiocchi: the only issue was the date

Baiocchi Ventures Inc. owns two things. One is an unoccupied commercial and industrial building of roughly 57,000 square feet at 15 Curity Avenue, in the East York part of Toronto. The other is 8318 Maynard Road in Orono — about 196 acres of rural land with a large house on it, and someone living in the house, per Factum of the Receiver, August 17, 2026, para. 4.

The someone is Yeganeh Baiocchi, the spouse of Aldo Baiocchi, the principal of the debtor. She lives there with her daughter. Almost everything that has been contested in this receivership since it began in June has been about her, and on August 17 it came down to a single number on a calendar.

June 29: the term Justice Myers added

Alterna Savings and Credit Union Limited applied for a receiver over Baiocchi Ventures under s. 243(1) of the BIA and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act. Justice Myers granted it on June 29, 2026 and appointed Albert Gelman Inc., per Receivership Order, June 29, 2026.

Ms. Baiocchi attended that hearing. What happened there is worth setting out, because the receiver quoted it back to the court in August and because it framed everything after.

Counsel for Holloway Trading Corporation, the first mortgagee on the Maynard Property, told Justice Myers that her client was not looking to take immediate possession. She also made the point that under paragraph 2(a) of the Commercial List's template receivership order, the receiver has the right to take possession of all of the debtor's property in any event — so even if Holloway had never appeared and told Alterna the Maynard Property existed, the receiver would have had that right the moment it learned of it, per Endorsement of Myers J., June 29, 2026, quoted in Factum of the Receiver at para. 17.

Justice Myers then said something judges do not often put on the record so plainly:

I know nothing about the equities as between the debtor and Ms. Baiocchi.

Neither Holloway's counsel nor Alterna's opposed his suggestion that the order be made subject to a term: the receiver was not to take possession of the Maynard Property except with Ms. Baiocchi's agreement, or on a further order of the court obtained on notice to her, per Endorsement of Myers J., June 29, 2026, quoted in Factum of the Receiver at para. 18.

Ms. Baiocchi asked whether that gave her the ninety days she expected on a private sale of her house. The answer, from the bench, was that the Commercial List tends to work in matters of a few weeks rather than three months, and that there is no right to ninety days before a closing on a private sale either — a closing date is negotiated, and so is an eviction date. He also explained to her what the appointment had already done: the debtor had lost the ability to sell the property, and only the receiver could market or sell it now, per Endorsement of Myers J., June 29, 2026, quoted in Factum of the Receiver at paras. 19–20.

That term — agreement or a further order — is what produced the motion two months later. It gave Ms. Baiocchi something a template receivership order would not have: a veto that could only be overridden by a judge who had heard from her.

July: four requests, and a lease

The receiver decided shortly after appointment that it needed possession of the Maynard Property to do its job. It asked Ms. Baiocchi to agree a date to leave, and to provide evidence of any legal right she had to stay, on July 6. It asked again on July 16, July 29 and July 31, per Factum of the Receiver, August 17, 2026, para. 11.

On July 31, through counsel, she produced a lease.

It is dated October 1, 2025. It sets monthly rent at $1,000, payable — at her discretion — in lump instalments representing multiple months. The receiver's position is that $1,000 is significantly below market for a property of this nature, and that it has received no rent from her at all since its appointment, per Factum of the Receiver, August 17, 2026, para. 12.

The document also carries a witness signature dated March 16, 2026. That date does work in the receiver's argument, because of what had already happened by then: Holloway had served a Notice of Sale on the Maynard Property on December 19, 2025, and on February 27, 2026 had commenced an action in the Superior Court seeking payment of the mortgage and possession. The receiver's stated belief is that the lease may have been entered into around March 16, 2026 and backdated to October 1, 2025, per Factum of the Receiver, August 17, 2026, para. 13.

That is the receiver's belief and it is put no higher than that in the materials. Nothing in the August 17 endorsement resolves it, and on the disposition reached, nothing had to.