Romandale Farms: an hour's stand-down, and a receiver for some 89 acres

The land at 3975 Elgin Mills Road East in Markham is, in Justice Dietrich's description, "approximately 89 acres of primarily vacant land, with a manor home and a number of ancillary structures on it." It belongs to Romandale Farms Limited, and AFC Mortgage Administration Inc. holds two mortgages over it, per the Endorsement of Justice Dietrich, Oct. 21, 2026, paras. 1, 8–9 and the Receivership Order, Oct. 21, 2026, Schedule A.

On October 21, 2026, when AFC's application for a receiver came on before the Commercial List, counsel for the company's guarantor, who the endorsement says was an officer and director of the company, asked for ten more days. An unsworn affidavit, counsel said, had been delivered to AFC's lawyers "just minutes before the hearing" and "provided details of committed financing." The judge stood the matter down for an hour so that it could be sworn and reviewed. After a review of the sworn affidavit, AFC opposed the adjournment, and Justice Dietrich declined to grant it. With the adjournment refused, the guarantor's counsel "did not express opposition to the appointment of the receiver, provided as noted above that the appointment was limited to the Real Property and proceeds thereof," per the Endorsement, Oct. 21, 2026, paras. 3–7. The order signed that day, under s. 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, appoints Rosen Goldberg Inc. receiver, without security, of the property "including all proceeds thereof," per the Receivership Order, Oct. 21, 2026, para. 2.

The limit came from AFC's side. Its notice of application had sought a receiver and manager of Romandale's assets, undertakings and properties, per the Notice of Application, para. 1(b), Application Record. But "AFC only has security over the Real Property and not over any other assets of the Debtor," the endorsement notes, so its counsel "clarified that the appointment is only sought over the Real Property and any proceeds thereof," and the proposed order was "modified during the hearing" to keep it there, per the Endorsement, Oct. 21, 2026, paras. 2, 24.

Four reasons against ten days

A later date had been possible once, on a condition. Scheduling the application on October 9 for noon on October 21, Justice Steele noted that the respondent had wanted the week of October 26. "However, there is a concern regarding insurance coverage," she wrote: if the respondents gave proof of insurance by noon on October 14, the parties could ask for a conference about moving the date, per the Endorsement of Justice Steele, Oct. 9, 2026, paras. 3–4, Supplemental Application Record, Exhibit A. William Coburn, an associate at AFC's law firm, affirmed on October 19 that AFC had received notice that the coverage had been cancelled. The broker's email, which the respondents' counsel forwarded on or about October 9, said the cancellation date had been moved to October 23 and that the earned premium of $4,910.76 had to be received by October 13 and the rest before October 23 "in order for the coverage to be reinstated," the affidavit says; a letter from AFC's counsel about the insurance on October 16 had drawn no response by the time it was affirmed, per the Affidavit of William Coburn, Oct. 19, 2026, paras. 3, 7–8, 15.

Justice Dietrich gave four reasons for refusing the adjournment. No proof of insurance had been provided by Justice Steele's deadline, "and the affidavit evidence before me today makes clear insurance has not yet been obtained." After the October 9 attendance "no responding material was filed (until during the hearing today as noted above)." It was "not clear" to the judge that the guarantor, an undischarged bankrupt, had "any standing to appear or speak on this matter today," and the court had "no evidence" that she could speak for the company, per the Endorsement, Oct. 21, 2026, para. 6(a)–(c).

The fourth reason was the financing. The affidavit attached an appraisal as at February 27, 2026 that exceeds the amounts owing to AFC, the judge noted, but the appraisal "is subject to a number of assumptions," and the affidavit "does not contain evidence of a firm commitment or available funds." It spoke instead "to an expected letter of intent and a verbal commitment to lend" from an individual at Blackship Capital "on behalf of unnamed high networth clients in the local area and in China." A non-binding indicative loan proposal, which the endorsement describes as "noted as being for discussion purposes only and not a commitment to lend," was also provided; it "was not attached to any sworn affidavit nor is it, on its face, evidence of committed financing," per the Endorsement, Oct. 21, 2026, para. 6(d).