1680 Brimley: the same $500,000, the receiver now accepts

Justice J. Dietrich's endorsement of October 19, 2026 describes "two primary buckets of funds" in question on the motion by TDB Restructuring Limited, receiver of 1680 Brimley LP, its general partner 2808908 Ontario Inc. and Brimley Progress Developments Inc., for an order that Hansalex Corp. pay $24,941,549.49 into the receivership estate. One is the "circular" funds, approximately $16 million in all, transferred between 2808908 ("280") and Hansalex in September 2025, days before the receiver's appointment on September 10, 2025, per the Appointment Order, Sept. 10, 2025, recital and para. 2 and the Endorsement, Sept. 18, 2026, para. 29. "The Receiver now accepts that information provided by Hansalex shows that the funds actually amount to the same $500,000 being circled between 280 and Hansalex repeatedly," the endorsement says. As of October 19 the receiver had not been given information explaining 280's entitlement to the $500,000, or the transfer of that amount to Hansalex, per the Endorsement, Oct. 19, 2026, para. 5 and the Endorsement, Sept. 18, 2026, para. 1(b).

The second bucket, approximately $9 million, dates back to the period beginning in 2023. Hansalex has indicated, the endorsement says, that those funds relate to repayment of debts and invoices for services, and "further specifics and back up are required." Justice Dietrich wrote: "I share the Receiver's concerns with the information provided to date," per the Endorsement, Oct. 19, 2026, paras. 4, 6. Hansalex agreed to provide the requested explanations and back-up for the $500,000, and the requested back-up for the approximately $9 million, by no later than November 2, 2026; the receiver agreed to withdraw its motion without prejudice, and costs were reserved, per the same endorsement, paras. 7, 9. The same day the judge signed a production order appointing Kroll Consulting Canada Co. to image the respondents' servers, its fees to be borne equally by the receivership estate and Atria Development Corporation, per the Production Order, Oct. 19, 2026, paras. 2, 6.

What the court asked for in September

The orders made at the September 18 hearing were reported here on September 23. In the endorsement released the same day, Justice Dietrich turned down both sides on Hansalex: "I am not prepared to grant the relief requested by the Receiver at this time. However, I am also not prepared to dismiss the motion as requested by the Debtors." The judge's concern was that "the relevant information has not been provided to the Receiver by the Debtors as required by the order appointing the Receiver," per the Endorsement, Sept. 18, 2026, paras. 27–28. Of the $500,000 repeatedly deposited into the debtors' account and transferred to Hansalex in the week before the receivership, the endorsement says: "I have no explanation for this repeated transfer before me. The Debtors baldly state it was an accounting entry (which I have concerns with given money actually moved), but it is not clear where the funds came from or why." The receiver was to send the respondents' counsel a list of questions by September 25, per the same endorsement, paras. 29–30.

The same endorsement decided who would read the servers first. Many of the books and records "appear to be on a shared server and co-mingled" with those of other corporations that have the same directors as the debtors and are related to Atria, and the debtors had raised privilege concerns, so a third party would review the records and provide those relating to the debtors to the receiver. "As in Creative Wealth, Atria and the Debtors have chosen to structure their affairs in this way and at this point are to bear 50% of the costs," the judge wrote, without prejudice to the receiver arguing for 100% after a review, with Atria to pay an estimate of its share up front, per the same endorsement, paras. 15, 17. The judge was also not prepared, at that time, to approve a future sale process consisting of the MLS listing with CBRE already in place, per the same endorsement, paras. 21–22.

The questions, and Hansalex's answers

The receiver's counsel sent the questions on September 25. Among other things they asked for bank statements, evidence if it was the same funds going back and forth, the purpose of the transfers ("If the explanation is 'accounting purposes' an explanation of what 'accounting purposes' means in this context"), and why actual funds had to be transferred if the purpose was accounting, per the Aide Memoire of the Receiver, Oct. 16, 2026, Sched. "A", p. 8. By October 6 the respondents' counsel was also acting for Hansalex and had agreed to answer by October 15, per the Endorsement, Oct. 6, 2026, para. 3.

The answer, dated October 15, called the questions "overly broad, beyond the scope of the Receiver's mandate and unnecessary to answer the question at issue." For the transfers before September 4, 2025, the letter says 280's general ledger shows $5.05 million injected into the partnership by Hansalex over many ordinary-course intercompany transactions, and that Hansalex, with UBC's knowledge, paid two interest payments to KingSett, totalling approximately $900,000, and approximately $968,000 of site application fees while UBC's funding was delayed, about $1.87 million that the partnership later repaid, per the Oct. 15 letter, pp. 12–13. The receiver's transfer schedule, annotated by Hansalex's controller, labels $2,545,511.52 of those transfers "Invoice Paid to Hansalex Corp." and $6,778,000 "Intercompany Loan," for a total of $9,323,511.52. The two sample invoices enclosed, both addressed to 1680 Brimley LP, bill a "development management fee": $30,000 a month for 2021 on one, $125,000 for December 2023 on the other, each plus HST, per the Oct. 15 letter, p. 13 and Tabs 4–5, pp. 28, 30–31. "Therefore, most, if not all, of the funds exchanged prior to the Circular Transactions were repayments of intercompany loans, payments for services rendered, or payments approved by UBC," the letter says, per the Oct. 15 letter, p. 13.

For September 4 and 5, 2025, the letter produced Hansalex's own bank statement for the period, to sit beside 280's. Before the transfers began, it says, Hansalex's account held $4,200.59; on September 4, $496,000 arrived from other members of the Atria Group "as part of their broader tax and intercompany planning," and "Each withdrawal was followed by a redeposit, and this cycle continued for the balance of the day," per the Oct. 15 letter, pp. 12, 14. The account numbers, it says, indicate that the same $500,000 was moving in and out, and "At no point was the balance in Hansalex's account more than marginally greater than $500,000, and there was no reduction in the funds of 280 other than funds that had flowed from Hansalex." On why the money moved: "We are advised that the Atria Group is not prepared to provide further details of its private internal accounting and tax planning at this time; however, that information is not required to answer the question on the motion concerning the money received by Hansalex," per the Oct. 15 letter, pp. 13–14. The letter asked the receiver to tell the court on October 19 that it consented to the dismissal of its motion, per the Oct. 15 letter, p. 15.