1680 Brimley: the liens get a bar date, the CMHC question waits

Five contractors and suppliers have liens registered against the excavated lot at 1680 Brimley Road in Scarborough. Astro Excavating Inc. registered the largest, for $2,188,373.82, and Astro Shoring Inc. registered one for $875,597.45, both on December 2, 2024. A& Architects Inc. followed on September 2, 2025, for $407,135.18, and Reimar Construction Corporation, for $363,005.96, on September 10, 2025 — the day the receiver was appointed. Otis Canada, Inc. registered the last, for $282,500.00, on April 21, 2026, seven months into the receivership. Together the liens claim $4,166,612.41, per the First Report of the Receiver, June 30, 2026, para. 76. On September 18, 2026, Justice J. Dietrich of the Commercial List signed an order that sets how each of those claims will be proved, judged and appealed, and when a claim that is not put forward is barred.

At the end of June, the receiver, TDB Restructuring Limited, delivered its first report. It asked to recover $24 million moved to Hansalex Corp., to image the debtors' servers, to have its sale process approved and to run a lien claims process, and the motion was returnable September 18. Over the summer that motion was contested. The court's two orders of that day decide the lien process and most of the uncontested relief. They also carve out the receiver's handling of two CMHC insurance certificates, the part of its conduct the developer attacked at greatest length.

What the lien order does

The order makes its process "the exclusive process by which all Claims shall be determined," for claims under the Construction Act for services and materials supplied on or before September 10, 2025. Determinations by the receiver carry "the same force and effect as if made by a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the Construction Act," per the Construction Lien Claims Process Order, Sept. 18, 2026, paras. 2–4. A claimant must have preserved its lien under the statute. It must then deliver a proof of lien claim by the earlier of its own last day to perfect and October 31, 2026, with a documentation schedule running from the contract and invoices to timesheets, WSIB clearance certificates, as-builts and a breakdown separating base scope, approved extras, unapproved extras and delay claims, per the Construction Lien Claims Process Order, Sept. 18, 2026, para. 5 and Sched. "B", Sched. "1".

The receiver has until November 30, 2026 to deliver a notice of determination with reasons, and must post each notice on its website by December 1. A claimant has 30 days to dispute. Disputes go to a claims officer with construction lien expertise, or to an associate judge, by further order, as a hearing de novo; the court then hears any appeal from that, and its decision is "final and binding on all parties, with no further right of appeal," per the Construction Lien Claims Process Order, Sept. 18, 2026, paras. 8–10.

Three other provisions go to how this site's claims will be fought. The owner, Brimley Progress Developments Inc., and the construction manager, Atriacon Management Inc., must deliver within ten business days after the bar date any documents they rely on to dispute a claim. For Construction Act purposes, every pre-receivership contract or subcontract is deemed substantially performed, completed or abandoned no later than the bar date. Priority is held back: the receiver "shall not accept or settle a Claim on the basis of it having any priority over any mortgage registered on title," and priority, holdback and the account of holdback funds are left to a later order, per the Construction Lien Claims Process Order, Sept. 18, 2026, paras. 6, 11–13. Trust claims under the Act against anyone other than the receiver, and contract claims against anyone other than the receiver, survive the bar, per the same order, para. 15.

The order differs from the outline in the June report. That version gave a claimant 15 days to dispute a revision, let the receiver decide claims "at such time as the Receiver considers appropriate in its sole and absolute discretion," and would have let it accept a lien's priority over a mortgage with the mortgagee's written consent, per the First Report, June 30, 2026, paras. 85–87. The receiver told the court it had received comments from lien claimants on its proposal and had revised it to take them into account, per the Factum of the Receiver, Sept. 4, 2026, paras. 56, 59, which points to KEB Hana as Trustee v. Mizrahi Commercial (THE ONE) LP, 2024 ONSC 1678, as an example of the court approving a process to vet construction liens.

The respondents did not oppose the lien process. The developer's principal, Hans Jain, sole officer and director of 2808908 Ontario Inc. and of the owner, told the court in July that the respondents had "no position on the other relief being sought", meaning everything beyond the relief he contested, per the Affidavit of Hans Jain, July 16, 2026, paras. 2, 8.

The certificates

What the respondents did fight begins with two certificates of insurance from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Mr. Jain describes them as a net insured loan of $366,375,375 (gross $376,704,741.93) for construction, with a 4.00% ceiling rate and a first advance date of March 9, 2026, and a second of $444,361,728.93 (gross $446,256,673.89) on stabilization. He says they took 15 months to obtain and were the largest approved under CMHC's MLI Select program in Canada in 2025, per his Affidavit of Hans Jain, July 16, 2026, paras. 56–57.

The financing lapsed on March 9, 2026, and the respondents' factum makes a point of the receiver's offer-not-before date, March 26, falling after it. According to the factum, Mr. Jain warned the receiver on September 24 and November 4, 2025, and on March 9, 2026; the receiver "allowed the COIs to lapse during its appointment" and did not go to court for directions. The factum quotes the receiver's answer to a written question: it "did not consider the potential preservation of the financing instrument to be sufficient utility to warrant a meeting" absent evidence of funds to pay out the lender, per the Responding Factum of the Respondents, Sept. 10, 2026, paras. 3, 16–19. Asked whether it had considered seeking a stay or directions to preserve the certificates, the receiver answered that it had not, because it "cannot compel a party to extend, maintain, or continue a non-binding expression of interest," per the Responses to Formal Interrogatories, Sept. 2, 2026, Q. 12, in Compendium of the Respondents, Sept. 17, 2026, Tab 1, p. 5.

The receiver's July supplement gives its side: it paid outstanding CMHC fees to keep the certificate in good standing, and asked CMHC directly about an extension. CMHC said the request had to come through the approved lender, CBRE Capital (Canada) Inc. In a later meeting the receiver was told the certificate was not transferable, would not be extended, and could not be assumed by a purchaser, who would need a new application. It was also told the certificate was conditional on the applicant remaining guarantor, and UBC had no interest in doing so after a sale, per the Supplement to the First Report, July 27, 2026, paras. 13–19. "The Receiver did not make the CMHC COIs available to be assigned because they cannot be assigned," its reply factum says, per the Reply Factum of the Receiver, Sept. 15, 2026, paras. 6–9.