Jay's Metal: the inventory count is in a notebook nobody can find

The galvanized coils were still in the yard. When BDO Canada Limited toured the Calgary and Edmonton premises of four related metal fabricators on the afternoon of August 20, 2026, hours after Justice G.S. Dunlop appointed it receiver, it observed significant quantities of raw material, and finished customer orders sitting on the floor waiting to be picked up — some fully prepaid, some part-paid, some not paid at all. What it could not find was any document saying which was which, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 17, 52–53. Two weeks later the receiver went back to court to ask that the companies' management be ordered to hand over the records, and that two directors pay the costs of the asking out of their own pockets.

Royal Bank of Canada applied on August 10, 2026 on the affidavit of Marlene Starenky. The receivership order pronounced ten days later appointed BDO over Jay's Metal Products Ltd., Jay's Metal Structural Ltd., Jay's Metal Steel Framing Ltd. and Jay's Metal Edmonton Ltd., under s. 243(1) of the BIA together with s. 13(2) of Alberta's Judicature Act and s. 65(7) of the Personal Property Security Act. Jagjit Bajwa and Rajinder Singh were named as respondents alongside the four companies. The order granted a Receiver's Charge of up to $200,000 and a Receiver's Borrowings Charge of up to $400,000, per the Receivership Order, Aug. 20, 2026, caption and paras. 2, 18, 21. RBC's claim, as set out in the Starenky affidavit and recited by the receiver, is approximately $4,893,619, secured by a registration against all present and after-acquired personal property made on October 6, 2020, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 25. Behind the bank sit a long column of equipment lessors registered at the Alberta Personal Property Registry — the Business Development Bank of Canada against all four companies, and, depending on the entity, Stride Capital, Bennington, Bodkin, Ford Credit, ATB Financial, Sequoia, Coast Capital, Essex Lease, Arundel Capital and others, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 26.

The business had, on management's account, already stopped. Management told the receiver the companies began winding down about a month before the receivership, apart from some immaterial purchases, and terminated employees gradually over roughly thirty days, the last of them in the days immediately before the order, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 12.

What the books say, and what they are worth

The unaudited internal statements at June 30, 2026 show accounts receivable of $5,618,865 — $1,572,841 at Products, $3,990,242 at Structural, $55,782 at Steel Framing and nothing at Edmonton, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 14. The receiver reports that the number does not mean what it appears to mean: management explained that a receivable was booked the moment an order came in, before any work was done on it, so the balance is expected to be overstated, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 15. A receivable subledger later produced by management, of approximately $961,030, has the same defect — it lists every order received without distinguishing the ones that were completed, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 54 and the Application for an Order Compelling Compliance, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 6. Asked for the ordinary supporting documents — a purchase order, an invoice, an acknowledgement of receipt — management answered that no such package exists. The companies had historically collected almost everything they billed, it said, because of their relationships with their customers, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 55.

There is no inventory listing at all. The last physical count was about three months before the receivership, and the receiver was told the record of it "is likely written in Mr. Bajwa's notebook, the whereabouts of this notebook is currently unknown," per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 18. On equipment, management advised that certain machinery had been sold in the period before the order — a statement the receiver says was corroborated by a landlord's observation that equipment appeared to be missing — but no listing of current equipment and no particulars of any disposition had been produced, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 19.

At the first attendance the receiver noticed something else missing. It records "the absence of any computers or electronic records which would appear unusual for a company of this size," and that Mr. Bajwa explained it was normal practice for employees to bring their own personal computers to work each day — while the receiver notes that computer hardware and software appear on the companies' financial statements, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 45. The books, the receiver was told, were with Mr. Bajwa's niece, who acted as the bookkeeper. Asked for her name and contact information, he said he wanted to speak with her first, and asked whether she would consent to its release. The receiver replied that if he was unwilling or unable to provide it, the obligation to obtain and produce the records stayed with him, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 43–44. Also at that first attendance, the report says, Mr. Bajwa "enquired as to what compensation would be offered to solicit his continued support," per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 46.

Two addresses that were not on the list

The receiver learned of the first of them by accident. On August 27 a creditor called about a possible thirty-day goods claim, and the invoices it sent through carried a delivery address at 6039 46 Street SE — a location management had not disclosed. The shipping paperwork showed goods arriving there between about July 23 and August 20, 2026, which the receiver calls notable against management's account of a wind-down a month earlier; it says it confirmed that understanding with management and invited a correction, and received none, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 38–39.

Asked directly whether there were other locations, Mr. Bajwa identified two — the 46 Street premises and another at 6771 84 Street SE — and said the companies had been locked out of both for non-payment of rent. The receiver reached the 46 Street landlord to arrange access, and reports that the landlord said the opposite: rent was current to the end of August and there had been no lockout. The landlord produced a lease made as of April 23, 2026, commencing July 1, 2026, for a five-year term with a deposit of approximately $108,972 — signed, in other words, while the wind-down was said to be under way. The 84 Street landlord had not been reached by the date of the report; when the receiver attended there it found no sign of occupation and a substantially empty building behind a secured yard, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 40–42.

A crane had gone the other way. Arundel Capital Corporation had written to RBC's counsel seeking to have a used 2017 XCMC RT7OU crane excluded from the receivership, saying it had bought the machine from ANT Equipment on November 19, 2025 and leased it to Jay's Products the same day. At the first attendance management told the receiver that Arundel or a civil enforcement bailiff had seized the crane before the order was granted without leaving any paperwork; Arundel's counsel confirmed the pre-receivership seizure, saying the seizure was registered shortly after the bailiff removed the machine and that no notice of seizure was handed over because there was nobody from the companies at the location. The receiver says it is consulting counsel on its position, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 20–24.

Five days, three letters

The receiver's correspondence is appended to the report and its tone moves quickly. A letter of August 20 confirmed the order and repeated the request for books and records, for the name of whoever managed the electronic records and email, and for the computers. August 23 attached the first letter, repeated the requests, and said that without immediate compliance the receiver would consult counsel about applying for an order declaring the recipients in breach of the receivership order. On August 25 the receiver's counsel wrote to the debtors' counsel: notwithstanding repeated verbal and written requests, and a clear court-ordered obligation, the books and records had not been produced, and if Mr. Bajwa continued to be uncooperative the receiver would seek to have him found in contempt and would ask for costs against him personally, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 47–48 and Appendices "D"–"F".

What arrived on August 26 was a partial answer: an employee list with names and email addresses for Jay's Products alone, a copy of a termination letter dated August 17, 2026 that the report describes as purported to have been given to employees, accounts receivable and payable reports for Jay's Products as at August 20 which Mr. Bajwa said were out of date because the companies had stopped updating their records in the weeks before the receivership, a copy of the insurance policy, and hard copies of some customer invoices, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 49.

Why the receiver says it cannot wait

Three reasons, all of them about time. The finished goods on the floor were made for customers with production schedules, and Mr. Bajwa himself told the receiver that prompt delivery or pickup was what made those sales completable; without invoices, prepayment records or customer contacts, the receiver cannot complete them or collect against them, and says the delay is expected to materially impact recoveries, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 51–56. Without a proper employee listing it cannot issue records of employment, cannot discharge its obligations under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, and cannot ask former employees whether they would return — which matters because a prospective purchaser has indicated interest in a going-concern sale that would bring staff back, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 57 and the Application for an Order Compelling Compliance, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 7–8. And on the equipment said to have been sold before the order — including, on Mr. Bajwa's own account to the receiver, at least two pieces of leased equipment whose proceeds he said went into the companies' bank account — the receiver has asked for bills of sale, the basis on which prices were set, any appraisals and evidence that consideration was paid, and has been given none, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, paras. 58–60.

On August 27 the receiver served notice under paragraph 3(s) of the receivership order of its intention to assign the debtors into bankruptcy, with BDO proposed as trustee, and told the court it is not yet certain whether it will assign all four companies or only some, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 2 and Appendix "A".

The application was filed at 3:56 p.m. on September 2 and is returnable at 3:00 p.m. on September 3, in virtual courtroom 60 of the Calgary Courts Centre, before Justice Marion. It asks for a declaration that the debtors and management — a defined term that names Mr. Bajwa and Mr. Singh — have failed to comply fully with paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the receivership order; for delivery of the records, customer and creditor contacts, payroll and asset listings, particulars of every disposition over $5,000 in the twelve months before the order, and the devices, passwords and administrator credentials used in the business; for Mr. Bajwa and Mr. Singh to attend and answer the receiver's questions; for disclosure of every premises including the two on 46 Street and 84 Street; for an order against deleting, altering or concealing records; and for costs of the application against Mr. Bajwa and Mr. Singh personally, on a solicitor-client full indemnity basis, per the Application for an Order Compelling Compliance, Sept. 2, 2026, relief sought (a)–(l) and the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 61.

None of it has been tested. The receiver's first report carries the usual terms of reference: it has not audited or otherwise verified the information it was given and expresses no opinion or assurance on it, per the First Report of the Receiver, Sept. 2, 2026, para. 5. No responding material from the debtors or from Mr. Bajwa or Mr. Singh had been filed when this was written.