Bibi Maryam: a sale approved in Toronto, a claim against TD in Oshawa

The building at 22 King Street West in Oshawa, five storeys of offices and shops, and the equipment inside it are Bibi Maryam Inc.'s only assets, according to its receiver's First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 14, 2026, para. 5. On September 22, 2026, the company and its principal issued a statement of claim against The Toronto-Dominion Bank in the Superior Court of Justice at Oshawa. The first item of relief it asks for is "[a] mandatory interim injunction prohibiting the sale of Property known municipally as 22 King St W, Oshawa, Ontario by the receiver appointed by this Honourable Court, notwithstanding the approval of the sale process, pending the expedited trial of this action," per the Statement of Claim, Sept. 22, 2026, App. "A" to the Supplemental Report, para. 1(i).

Ten days later, on October 2, Justice Cavanagh of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) approved that sale. His endorsement, four numbered paragraphs long, finds that the transaction "meets the principles of Soundair" and that the requirements for a sealing order are satisfied, per the Endorsement of Cavanagh J., Oct. 2, 2026, paras. 2–4. The two orders he signed that day approve the sale, vest the building in the buyer once the receiver delivers its certificate, seal the appendices that hold the price, and approve the fees of the receiver and its lawyers, per the Approval and Vesting Order, Oct. 2, 2026, paras. 1–2 and the Ancillary Order, Oct. 2, 2026, paras. 5–6. The endorsement does not mention the claim.

The sale's path to that hearing was reported here on September 16, including Justice Dunphy's note that any legal avenues the company might pursue against the bank "are entirely separate and distinct from the matters before the court on October 2," per the Endorsement of Dunphy J., Sept. 8, 2026, para. 3.

What the Oshawa claim asks for

The claim was electronically issued at Oshawa on September 22 under court file CV-26-00002843-0000. Its plaintiffs are Bibi Maryam Inc. and the company's principal; its one defendant is TD. Powell Barrister Professional Corporation, Mr. Robinson's firm, signed it as lawyers for the plaintiffs, per the Statement of Claim, Sept. 22, 2026, App. "A" to the Supplemental Report, Supplemental Record pp. 10, 24.

The injunction heads a list of eleven items of relief. Second on it is declaratory relief "in the nature of the rescission of certain transactions including a purchase transaction and mortgage transactions," reaching the mortgage the company granted TD over the building and "any and all mortgages" it granted to other secured creditors. Then come damages for breach of "a valid and binding forbearance agreement entered into without forbearance fees but for other valuable consideration"; in the alternative, equitable compensation for waiver and acquiescence and for promissory estoppel; damages for tortious interference with the plaintiffs' "contractual relationship with their mortgage broker and incoming financiers"; damages for breach of TD's "common law duty of care to its customers"; and punitive damages "in an amount proportionate to the assets of Toronto Dominion Bank," per the Statement of Claim, Sept. 22, 2026, App. "A" to the Supplemental Report, para. 1. The claim puts no figure on any of it. The particulars of damages "have not at the date of pleading been quantified," it says, and it asks that the trial be held at Oshawa, per the Statement of Claim, Sept. 22, 2026, App. "A" to the Supplemental Report, paras. 43, 142.

By the claim's account the building was bought through the company for approximately $5,200,000, per the Statement of Claim, Sept. 22, 2026, App. "A" to the Supplemental Report, paras. 14–15. Part of its case against the bank turns on what it pleads came later. Between March 2024 and November 2024, the claim says, TD entered into agreements forbearing on its receivership enforcement proceeding "without forbearance fees." Prospective lenders asked TD to remove a default notice and the bank did not agree, it pleads; the principal, it says, understood that this prevented or materially interfered with his ability to refinance, and each attempt was unsuccessful. It pleads that TD was estopped from relying on the clause in its mortgage "permitting it to terminate and call in the entire loan because of the registration of the second mortgage," per the Statement of Claim, Sept. 22, 2026, App. "A" to the Supplemental Report, paras. 79–83, 86–93, 107, 131.

The claim's allegations are unproven, and no statement of defence or other response from TD is in the record read for this piece.

What the receiver put before the court

The company's counsel emailed the receiver a copy of the claim on the day it was issued. Six days later, on September 28, the receiver filed a supplemental report "to update the Court on events which have transpired since the date of the First Report and to respond to the Statement of Claim," per the Supplemental Report of the Receiver, Sept. 28, 2026, paras. 1, 3. Its own words on the claim are a description of the parties and the injunction and one further sentence: "The Receiver did not provide its written consent to the issuance of the Claim," per the Supplemental Report of the Receiver, Sept. 28, 2026, paras. 3–4.

The rest of the two-page report puts three of the court's own endorsements back in front of it, one sentence apiece, per the Supplemental Report of the Receiver, Sept. 28, 2026, paras. 5–7. The report does not say what it draws from them. The earliest is Justice Steele's of October 20, 2025, the day the report says the application was first before the court. It records that the respondents sought an adjournment "to give them time to finalize the sales process that is underway regarding the property," that they were negotiating with at least two potential buyers, that they asked "for one final extension," and that they would not object to TD's relief on the return date if the court granted it, per the Endorsement of Steele J., Oct. 20, 2025, App. "B" to the Supplemental Report, paras. 2, 5–6. Justice Steele granted "one final adjournment," to November 17, 2025, and told the respondents "that the expectation was that there be a firm, no remaining conditions, agreement in place at that time," with closing on or before December 12, 2025, per the Endorsement of Steele J., Oct. 20, 2025, Supplemental Record p. 28. Her November 17 endorsement, the second attached, records that "[n]o party opposed the relief sought," per the Endorsement of Steele J., Nov. 17, 2025, para. 3. The third is Justice Dunphy's of September 8.