Cheema & Sons Transport: no leave to appeal the Goreway Drive sale

Two lots on Goreway Drive in Brampton, numbers 8412 and 8424, each hold a house, and each title carries a notice registered in 2000 under the Pearson Airport zoning regulations, one of two instruments the vesting order leaves in place, per the Approval and Vesting Order, July 14, 2026, Sched. "D". 2856586 Ontario Inc., a real estate holding company, owns them. The other debtor, 1512632 Ontario Inc., which operates as Cheema & Sons Transport, ran a dump truck, snow removal and excavation business from there, according to Grant Thornton Limited, appointed receiver of both companies on the Royal Bank of Canada's application, in its Third Report of the Receiver, June 24, 2026, paras. 3–4.

On July 14, 2026, Justice Cudjoe approved the receiver's sale of both lots to Gateway Landscape Group (2005) Inc., under an agreement assigned the day before to 8412-8424 Goreway Drive Holdings Inc., per the Approval and Vesting Order, July 14, 2026, paras. 2–3. The price is redacted from the public copy of the agreement, per the Third Report of the Receiver, June 24, 2026, para. 38. The debtors' counsel was unavailable that day; a new lawyer appeared as agent to ask for an adjournment, was refused, and the motion went ahead unopposed. In an endorsement released August 25, Osborne J.A. of the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the appeal procedure of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act governed and that the debtors needed leave, refused it, and recorded that their notice of appeal, due by July 24, was not served until July 30. "Leave to appeal is required, and leave is denied," per the Endorsement of Osborne J.A., Aug. 25, 2026, paras. 28–30, 34, 40, 55, 83.

Some of the creditors, but not all

The receivership began as an agreed order. On June 12, 2025, Justice J. Fowler Byrne granted it on terms the parties had settled, to take effect on July 3 unless, by July 2, RBC was paid in full and the debtors showed that their HST and source-deduction accounts with the Canada Revenue Agency were current, per the Endorsement of Fowler Byrne J., June 12, 2025, paras. 2–3. They did neither, per the Endorsement of Osborne J.A., Aug. 25, 2026, para. 16.

The receiver took 24 vehicles and pieces of equipment from the properties and went looking for the rest. At a truck yard in Vaughan on July 21, 2025, it reported, one truck with the Cheema logo on its doors drove away as it approached and another turned back at the gate. Management wrote the next day: "You already have our property that cost more than 5M. Also you took our 20 trucks and 2 caterpillars." It asked for time until Friday, when, it said, money would reach a lawyer's account, per the First Report of the Receiver, Aug. 20, 2025, paras. 25, 37–40. By March 2026 the receiver had auctioned the equipment for $421,297.88, per the Endorsement of Dennison J., Mar. 24, 2026, para. 9.

In December 2025 the debtors told the receiver they had a financing commitment of about $4.1 million to pay out RBC and the second mortgagee, Satish Chopra, and moved to discharge the receiver, per the Endorsement of Dennison J., Mar. 24, 2026, paras. 3, 12. An accountant's report the debtors filed concluded, in the receiver's summary, that the refinancing would leave a net surplus of $7,642. The receiver's schedule, counting $3,892,500.00 of refinancing proceeds, found a deficit of $77,003.93 to secured creditors and of $1,033,108.50 to known unsecured creditors, $1,011,757.00 of it owed to leasing companies, per the First Supplement to the Second Report, Mar. 19, 2026, paras. 5, 11, App. "A".

Justice Dennison dismissed the motion on March 24, while accepting for argument's sake that the financing was in place. "While the main two creditors would benefit from the refinancing, the remaining creditors which involves over $1,000,000 in debt, would be significantly prejudiced and that is not in the interests of justice." She would not discharge the receiver: "I do not find the refinancing plan to be fair and equitable to all the creditors in this case." The debtors could keep looking for lenders or buyers, "but they cannot usurp the role of the receiver," per the Endorsement of Dennison J., Mar. 24, 2026, paras. 26, 36–38. Their April 8 motion for leave to appeal, brought under s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act rather than the BIA, was served late, and by late August it had been neither perfected nor scheduled, per the Endorsement of Osborne J.A., Aug. 25, 2026, paras. 19–21.

Buyer 2

The receiver listed the properties with Cushman & Wakefield ULC on October 24, 2025 at $6,250,000. The debtors had an appraisal at $6,020,000; the receiver's came in "substantially less," at a figure kept in a confidential appendix. After three months of little interest, the receiver, in consultation with RBC and the broker, cut the price on January 23, 2026 to $5,175,000. One buyer's four offers were rejected as far below the listing price and the receiver's appraisal; three more buyers bid in late February. Negotiation waited on the debtors' motion. After March 24 the receiver called for best offers, countered the highest, and on March 31 accepted a final offer from the bidder it called Buyer 2, which said it would not negotiate the price further: Gateway Landscape Group Inc., per the Third Report of the Receiver, June 24, 2026, paras. 32–37. The listing had drawn 1,944 online views, 38 inquiries and visits from eight interested parties. The buyer paid its deposit on April 16, and on May 8 waived its financing condition and had its name amended to Gateway Landscape Group (2005) Inc. The sale also needed vacant possession, and on June 18 the Landlord and Tenant Board issued an eviction order against a residential tenant who had paid the receiver no rent. The receiver asked that the unredacted agreement and its summary of appraisals, listing proposals and offers stay sealed until closing, per the Third Report of the Receiver, June 24, 2026, paras. 38–41, 44, 47–52, 74.

RBC was owed approximately $2,899,226.79 at June 18, 2026, with interest and costs accruing; its mortgage is registered for a principal of $4,320,000. From the proceeds the receiver proposed to pay, in order, its own charge, covering its fees and disbursements of $219,483.71 and those of its counsel, Aird & Berlis LLP, of $70,224.63 to May 31; the $150,000 it had borrowed from RBC; $88.18 to the Canada Revenue Agency for HST held in trust; the City of Brampton's property tax arrears; and then RBC, up to the full amount owing, per the Third Report of the Receiver, June 24, 2026, paras. 64–65, 68–71.

Mr. Chopra holds the second charge, $1,100,000, registered December 18, 2024, per the Approval and Vesting Order, July 14, 2026, Sched. "C". After he signed a non-disclosure agreement, his counsel received the unredacted agreement on July 7, and he reviewed the price with them. His discharge figure was $1,360,215.00 at July 31, 2026. In an affidavit sworn July 8, he did not oppose the sale. He noted that the proposed distributions "make no provision for any payment to me," and asked that the order protect his second-ranking claim against the proceeds. If the sale did not complete, he added, his offer to pay out RBC for an assignment of its debt and security remained open, per the Supplementary Affidavit of Satish Chopra, July 8, 2026, paras. 3–12.