Jefferson Properties: six units vested in a day, and a fight about who is driving the costs

This receivership began on December 21, 2023, on the application of Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd. against 2011836 Ontario Corp., Jefferson Properties Limited Partnership and four other respondents.

On May 15, 2026 the receiver obtained six approval and vesting orders in a single sitting — Freehold Unit 11, Freehold Unit 30, and Stacked Units 105, 108, 211 and 310, per Approval and Vesting Order (Freehold Unit 11), May 15, 2026 and Approval and Vesting Order (Stacked Unit 310), May 15, 2026.

That is what selling a stalled residential development looks like at the retail end: unit by unit, order by order, each with its own approval.

The same day produced a very different document.

Six orders, one at a time

The unit-level structure of the sale is worth pausing on before the dispute.

A receiver realising a completed multi-unit development has two choices: sell the whole thing to one buyer at a bulk discount, or sell the units individually to end purchasers at retail prices and take on the time, cost and process of doing so. The second usually produces more money and always produces more work — including, as here, a separate approval and vesting order for every closing.

Two freehold townhouses and four stacked units in one attendance, alongside the receiver's Eleventh Report filed the same day for a motion returnable May 21, per Eleventh Report of the Receiver, May 15, 2026, Approval and Vesting Order (Freehold Unit 30), May 15, 2026, Approval and Vesting Order (Stacked Unit 105), May 15, 2026, Approval and Vesting Order (Stacked Unit 108), May 15, 2026 and Approval and Vesting Order (Stacked Unit 211), May 15, 2026.

Eleven reports and two and a half years in, the estate is being liquidated a house at a time.

The scheduling appointment

The other matter before Justice Black that day was booked by Fengxi Fanseay Wang, a respondent appearing for himself.

Two motions are in play, and the relationship between them is the whole issue, per Endorsement of Justice Black, May 15, 2026, paras. 1–4.

The receiver's motion, already scheduled by Steele J. for August 11, 2026, seeks an order for security for costs against Mr. Wang and a declaration that he is a vexatious litigant, among other relief.

Mr. Wang's proposed motion, which he calls the "Investigations/Directions Motion", is critical of the receiver and seeks an investigation of its conduct in administering the receivership. He alleges the receiver has not been transparent about costs and has caused ongoing prejudice to estate value and stakeholder interests.

And the two are linked: the security for costs the receiver seeks is security in respect of Mr. Wang's proposed motion.

So the question put to the judge was whether the party whose motion is the subject of a security-for-costs application should be allowed to bring that motion before the security application is heard.

What the receiver says the litigation is costing

The receiver's position, joined by the applicant lender, is set out in a single sentence that carries the economics of the file, per Endorsement, May 15, 2026, para. 5:

There are several outstanding and unpaid costs orders against Mr. Wang in the proceeding. And his conduct in bringing motions the receiver regards as unmeritorious "is largely responsible for driving up the costs in this receivership — in which limited proceeds are expected to be realized and in which Cameron Stephens is expecting to suffer a significant shortfall".

That last clause is the reason this is not merely a procedural squabble. In an estate expected to fall short, every dollar of professional time spent responding to a motion is a dollar the first mortgagee does not recover. The receiver is not arguing that the motions are annoying; it is arguing that they are being funded by the creditors.