Habitations Luma: the permits first, then the buyer

On July 19, 2019, 9304-7033 Québec inc., a developer doing business as Habitations Luma, bought the old Hôtel du Lac Tremblant in Mont-Tremblant to demolish it and build luxury condominiums, the Lago project, in two buildings on the shore of the lake. Work began in 2020 on 69 private portions, 23 at 121 rue Cuttle and 46 at 123 rue Cuttle. By June 2025 about 95% was built; what remained was mostly landscaping, including an outdoor pool, and a car elevator to carry vehicles down to the indoor garage of Building 2, which sits below the road, per the Application for an Initial Order, June 23, 2025, paras. 7–9, 12.

The elevator was not in the original plans. Neighbouring owners sued in May 2020 over a servitude of non-construction in favour of their lots, and on November 16, 2020 the Superior Court held that some of the planned work contravened it, a judgment the Court of Appeal confirmed on May 3, 2022. Luma replaced the original route to the garage with an elevator outside the servitude zones. In 2022 the neighbours obtained a provisional injunction that led Luma to take down part of a shoring wall; in April 2023 the City of Mont-Tremblant refused a pool permit because of the neighbours' dispute, and Luma sued it for mandamus and damages. The following month the neighbours brought a civil action alleging that the project breaches a zoning bylaw limiting the zones where the project stands to between 8 and 11 units, and seeking demolition of the car elevator and its building, the footbridge, any storey above the permitted number and any unit beyond the permitted density, per the Judgment (reasons for the amended and restated initial order), July 15, 2025, paras. 6–12.

Ninety-five per cent built

The debtors' account of their insolvency runs through that litigation. The pandemic raised material costs and thinned skilled labour; the elevator permit came six months late; the main building permit lapsed and could not be renewed before 2024, which stopped the elevator work entirely. Changes to the project produced construction overruns the application estimates at more than $12,000,000. Caisse Desjardins Le Manoir suspended its construction loan, and Luma took more than $15 million in advances from other companies controlled by Cédric Grenon, its president, director and shareholder, to fund part of the work and its operating costs. Buyers who had signed preliminary contracts sued to annul them and recover their deposits, citing the missing pool, spa, footbridge and driveway to the indoor parking, per the Application for an Initial Order, June 23, 2025, paras. 4, 15, 42–48.

On June 23, 2025, Luma owed Desjardins $9,454,035.75 in principal, secured by a $41,900,000 first-rank hypothec at 15% on every unsold private and common portion, a movable hypothec, and a guarantee from Grenon and the second debtor, 9251-7465 Québec inc. (9251), capped at $20,950,000. Construction Kingsboro Inc., which had done formwork for the unfinished elevator, had registered a legal hypothec for $614,414.70 against every private portion, sold units included, an amount Luma contests; its subcontractor Acier d'Armature Vimada inc. had registered $107,950.05 against the unsold ones. Buyers of 14 units that had not closed had paid deposits totalling $3,186,593, guaranteed by Plans de garantie ACQ inc. up to $245,000 a unit. The companies had two employees, a project manager and a carpenter, per the Application for an Initial Order, June 23, 2025, paras. 47, 49, 52–56, 88.

Justice Janet Michelin of the Superior Court, Commercial Division, in the district of Terrebonne, granted the initial order and a sale and investment solicitation process order on June 25, 2025, with MNP Ltée as monitor, per the Monitor's Ninth Report, Aug. 30, 2026, para. 1. At the July 10 comeback the neighbours opposed the amended and restated order, arguing that no sale could succeed while their demolition claim was pending, and asked in the alternative for the stay to be lifted. The judge dismissed their contestation from the bench, and in reasons issued on July 15 wrote that "at this early stage, it is difficult to foresee the details of a restructuring plan without knowing what the SISP will generate. However, that is not the same as saying there is no plan," per the Judgment, July 15, 2025, paras. 3–4, 22, 27 [translation]. She distinguished Kaloom, where a secured creditor had objected to bearing the cost of a sale process, noting that Desjardins supported this one and was funding it, and observed that the neighbours, more than two years into their proceedings, had not reached the interlocutory injunction stage. The stay held against every party to the civil action, and $1.25 million in interim financing from Desjardins was approved, per the Judgment, July 15, 2025, paras. 33, 51, 59–60, 67.

A process that waited on the neighbours

MNP sent its teaser to 135 prospective acquirers and signed 19 to confidentiality agreements. Several told the monitor they had concerns about submitting a non-binding letter of intent, "mainly because of pending litigation, in particular the suits brought by neighbours over the construction of a passage to the parking of one of the buildings," per the Monitor's Second Report, Sept. 26, 2025, paras. 15, 17 [translation]. Talks among the neighbours, the syndicate of co-owners, the debtors and the monitor began that August. The deadline for letters moved from August 7 to September 22, which brought three, none qualifying, and then to October 31, per the Monitor's Second Report, Sept. 26, 2025, paras. 18–25. On September 30 the court extended the stay to Grenon as guarantor, director and officer, and authorized a $450,000 payment to Desjardins from a unit that had closed on July 10 at a gross price of $674,000, per the Monitor's Ninth Report, Aug. 30, 2026, para. 3 and the Monitor's Second Report, Sept. 26, 2025, paras. 27(b), 30(a).

Qualified bidders delivered offers on November 19, 2025. Several notices pushed back the selection date, and on January 14, 2026 the monitor told every bidder that no offer qualified. MNP attributed the result "in particular to uncertainties about the state of the project, which is not completed, and to the litigation with the Neighbours, which is not resolved," per the Monitor's Fourth Report, Jan. 29, 2026, paras. 23–25, 29 [translation]. Two unit sales pulled out of the process to close on existing promises, units 107 and 404, had stalled when communication with the notary on the files broke down, and the debtors replaced her in October 2025, per the Monitor's Third Report, Dec. 2, 2025, paras. 28, 34–35 and the Monitor's Fourth Report, Jan. 29, 2026, para. 26. The debtors then tried to refinance and finish the building themselves: MNP Financement d'Entreprise approached 70 lenders, of whom 47 said they do not finance construction or were otherwise constrained, per the Monitor's Sixth Report, Mar. 23, 2026, paras. 27–31. The one financing offer that arrived carried conditions and was withdrawn, per the Monitor's Seventh Report, Apr. 9, 2026, para. 29.

The buyer went to city hall

Private negotiations under the monitor's supervision produced an offer the debtors had accepted by June 1, 2026, per the Monitor's Eighth Report, June 1, 2026, paras. 15–16. It was conditional on the permits needed to finish the project and on a reverse vesting order. The prospective purchaser's due diligence included negotiating agreements on the neighbours' suits, which involve the City, and its plan, in the monitor's description, was to settle with the neighbours and "agree on an acceptable plan essentially respecting the architecture initially planned for the Project by providing for an access road to the parking of building number 2," per the Monitor's Ninth Report, Aug. 30, 2026, paras. 17–21 [translation].