Diamond Luxury: a brokerage, a builder, and one house in London

The property at the centre of this receivership is a single parcel on William Street in London, Ontario, and the company that owns it is not a developer at all — it is a realty brokerage in Mississauga trading as Save Max Diamond Realty Brokerage. The building company is its sibling: Diamond Luxury Developments Corp., a federally incorporated construction and home builder registered at the same city, sharing with the brokerage a single director who guaranteed the debts of both, per Affidavit of S. Mohan-Puthussery, Mar. 31, 2026, paras. 2–7.

On July 24, 2026, Justice Kalajdzic appointed Albert Gelman Inc. as receiver and manager, without security, of all the assets, undertakings and properties of both companies, including that parcel — heard at 80 Dundas Street in London, on the Bank's application under section 243(1) of the BIA and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, per Order (Appointing Receiver), July 24, 2026, paras. 1–2.

Six defaults

The Bank's account manager, Sudheendra Mohan-Puthussery, swore the supporting affidavit on March 31, 2026, and its list of defaults reads as a compressed history of a small business coming apart, per Affidavit of S. Mohan-Puthussery, Mar. 31, 2026, para. 8.

The brokerage had stopped keeping the London property in good condition and had let its realty taxes with the City of London fall into arrears of $16,685.66 as at January 13, 2026. The builder had stopped making payments as they came due, and further encumbrances had been registered against its property without the Bank's consent. The Canada Revenue Agency had served the Bank with a requirement to pay dated November 19, 2025, for unremitted employee source deductions totalling $52,332.95.

And, third on the list, between the unpaid taxes and the missed payments: the builder had begun banking with an institution other than the Bank. It is a covenant breach rather than a shortfall, and in a package of defaults about money not arriving, it is the one that says the relationship had already ended.

The Bank's position on all of it is stated in a single sentence — it was unwilling to provide any further credit or forbearance, per Affidavit of S. Mohan-Puthussery, Mar. 31, 2026, para. 9.

Three agreements, one of them from the pandemic

The debt sits in three places, struck at three different times.

The brokerage borrowed under a letter of agreement dated April 26, 2023, and owed $592,255.94 as at February 25, 2026 — $565,451.33 on a term facility and $26,804.61 on a credit card facility. Against that the Bank took a general security agreement dated May 8, 2023, an unlimited guarantee from the director of the same date, and a first-position charge in the principal sum of $600,000 over the London property, receipted as instrument ER1524427 on May 11, 2023 under standard charge terms no. 8520, per Affidavit of S. Mohan-Puthussery, Mar. 31, 2026, paras. 10–12.

The builder borrowed under a letter of agreement dated October 30, 2024 and owed $263,482.37 as at January 27, 2026 — $211,552.71 on an operating facility and $51,929.66 on a credit card. Its security is a general security agreement dated November 1, 2024 and a second unlimited guarantee from the same director, per Affidavit of S. Mohan-Puthussery, Mar. 31, 2026, paras. 13–15.

The third agreement is older than either and is the one that dates the file. On June 7, 2021 the builder took a term facility under a HASCAP credit agreement — the Highly Affected Sectors Credit Availability Program, the pandemic-era lending channel — secured by its own security agreement of the same date. As at January 27, 2026 the balance was $514,681.28, per Affidavit of S. Mohan-Puthussery, Mar. 31, 2026, paras. 16–18.

Three figures struck on two dates, then: about $1.37 million across the two companies, of which the largest single piece is a loan advanced to help a construction business survive a public health emergency five years ago.

From April to July

The notice of application issued on April 7, 2026, returnable Friday, April 17. The order appointing the receiver is dated July 24 — a little over three months later. The application record read for this piece does not say what happened in between, and the endorsement of that day is on the docket as a scanned image without machine-readable text, so nothing here reports its contents, per Application Record, Tab 1 (Notice of Application issued Apr. 7, 2026).

What the receiver got

The powers are the standard schedule, and two of them matter for a single-asset file: the receiver may market the property, including advertising and soliciting offers, and it may sell, convey, transfer, lease or assign it. The receiver's charge over the property ranks first, ahead of all other security interests, trusts, liens and encumbrances. For funding, the receiver may borrow up to $500,000 of outstanding principal at any time — or more with a further order — secured by a borrowings charge that ranks ahead of everything except the receiver's own charge and the statutory priorities under sections 14.06(7), 81.4(4) and 81.6(2) of the BIA, per Order (Appointing Receiver), July 24, 2026, paras. 3(j)–(k), 20–21.

Schedule "A" to the order describes what secures all of it, in the language of the parcel register: part of lot 25 southeast of York Street, plan 178(E), as in instrument 889064, City of London, per Order (Appointing Receiver), July 24, 2026, Schedule "A".

A mortgage registered for $600,000, a property whose taxes stopped being paid, and a receiver empowered to borrow most of the mortgage's face value again to carry it. What the parcel is worth is not in this record.