Skyview Parking: the $9 million offer from outside the sale process

The land at 5005 144th Avenue NE in Calgary is about 20 acres zoned Industrial-Outdoor, and on it Skyview Parking and RV Storage Ltd. ran an airport parking and RV and truck storage business with its own shuttle buses. Skyview rented the lot from its owner, To Let Housing Corporation, under a lease dated January 1, 2024, at $34,000 a month plus GST, per the Receiver's Fourth Report, July 27, 2026, paras. 10–13 and the Supplement to the Third Report, June 8, 2026, para. 7. When Justice M.H. Bourque of the Court of King's Bench heard the receiver's sale-process application in November 2025, he did not know the business, and looked it up on a map. "It came as some surprise to me that the Skyview airport parking business is located north of Stoney Trail near the intersection of 144th Avenue North and Metis Trail/Dwight McLellan Trail," he said in his oral reasons. "It is a full nine kilometres in distance from the airport," per the transcript appended to the Supplement to the Second Report, Apr. 10, 2026, App. C, p. 40.

The money behind the land came from Vancouver. In March 2024 Domain Mortgage Corp. made two loans secured on the lot: $4.5 million to To Let at no less than 14% a year, rising to no less than 18% on November 1, 2024, and $2.5 million to To Let, the Dhaliwals and five numbered companies at no less than 18%, rising to no less than 24%. Skyview was covenantor on both loans; Inderdeep Dhaliwal, the sole shareholder and director of both companies, and Gurpartap Dhaliwal were covenantors on the first and among the borrowers on the second, per the Affidavit of Alexander Hayne, Dec. 20, 2024, paras. 4–6, 13, 20. Both loans matured on December 1, 2024, per Domain's Application, May 9, 2025, p. 6. Domain's affiant swore to learning on or about December 2, from MNP Ltd., that the Canada Revenue Agency had registered two writs against Skyview's vehicle collateral on October 28, for $201,559.18 and $1,090,492.70. Domain appointed MNP receiver by instrument on December 5, and put the loans at $4,569,088.98 and $2,574,753.14 as at December 19, per the Hayne Affidavit, paras. 27–30, 35.

The court appointment came on September 8, 2025. The consent receivership orders, Justice Bourque later recounted, "were obtained as consideration for forbearance agreements and subsequent extensions of the forbearance period," and Justice D.A. Labrenz granted one after refusing the companies' request for an adjournment to file evidence, per the Supplement to the Second Report, App. C, pp. 39–40. On August 4, 2026, Justice G.S. Dunlop approved MNP's final distribution and its discharge. In between, the companies' principals offered to buy the assets from outside the court's sale process, the court turned the offer down, and the Court of Appeal struck two appeals.

Ten NDAs, five bids, five rounds

MNP proposed a sale and investment solicitation process for both the land and the parking business, with Avison Young as marketing agent at a proposed 3.0% commission, per the Receiver's First Report, Nov. 3, 2025, paras. 25–26, 40. To Let had obtained the City of Calgary's conditional approval to subdivide on September 2, 2025, subject to conditions that included a $508,701.90 cash deposit, per the Receiver's Third Report, June 1, 2026, para. 12. The companies sought an adjournment, argued that the process would sell the real estate and overlook the business, and pressed the subdivision's value. Justice Bourque refused the adjournment and approved the process on November 14, 2025. "The principals of Skyview and To Let are welcome to submit a bid for the property or the business or both," he said, and "at this stage I am approving a process, not an outcome," per the Supplement to the Second Report, App. C, pp. 40–41.

The companies appealed six days later without seeking leave. Justice Joshua B. Hawkes of the Court of Appeal heard the receiver's motion to strike on February 25, 2026. His reasons, filed March 23 as 2026 ABCA 91, hold that because any sale under the process still needed court approval, the order "does not make any final determination of economic interests," so the appeal fell under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and needed leave. None had been sought, and the notice of appeal was "therefore of no effect." The motion was granted, per the Reasons for Decision, 2026 ABCA 91, Mar. 23, 2026, paras. 3, 6, 9.

The marketing had gone ahead meanwhile, from an e-mail campaign to 834 recipients on December 1, 2025 to notices in Insolvency Insider, the Calgary Herald and on Canada Newswire, and ten parties signed NDAs. By the February 6, 2026 deadline the receiver had five bids, four of them qualified. After a second round, two bidders went to auction on February 23, and after five rounds Redstone Parking and Storage Inc. was the winner, per the Receiver's Second Report, Apr. 6, 2026, paras. 28, 30–37. On the subdivision, the receiver reported that "no interested parties in the SISP ascribed any value to the conditional subdivision," per the Second Report, para. 40. Of the business it had run since September, MNP later wrote that "the economics of the business were not reflective of the amounts and historical financials claimed by management," per the Third Report, para. 14.

The offer from outside the process

On February 4, two days before the bid deadline, the companies' counsel told the receiver they were arranging conditional financing to redeem, on terms that barred the receiver from contacting the lender without their consent. On February 9 Gurpartap Dhaliwal, whom the receiver understood to be "the mind and management of the Companies," submitted an offer through 2787002 Alberta Ltd. The receiver asked for an offer on the data-room form of APA, a deposit of at least 5%, below the process minimum, and written evidence of firm financing, by February 12. It got a conditional term sheet whose conditions included diligence, credit committee approval, syndication, significant capital from Dhaliwal personally and the acquisition of additional real estate. No deposit or updated APA arrived, per the Second Report, paras. 48–55.

On April 9, a week before the sale hearing, Gurpartap Dhaliwal swore that the Dhaliwal bidder had offered a total of $9,000,000 for the two companies' assets, had secured financing, and believed the offers could close on May 15. The receiver's supplement answered that the price in the latest version was "materially less" than the one submitted in February; that the bids contemplated the estate paying certain CRA claims and property taxes, and the CRA consenting; that the aggregate deposit was $35,000, "approximately 0.38% of the purchase price"; that the financing term sheet carried "at least seven significant conditions," among them that Gurpartap fund a $1,700,000 joint commitment; and that the proposed closing had moved from April 30 to May 15 in under a week, while the other compliant bids had an outside date of April 30, per the Supplement to the Second Report, paras. 6–7.

Justice R.W. Armstrong heard both applications on April 16. Domain supported the sale and the CRA took no position; two creditors he described as secondary secured creditors, an individual and a numbered company, backed the higher offer. He ruled from the bench that the companies, having opposed the process before Justice Bourque and lost an appeal from it, "cannot now complain to me in this application about the SISP process that was approved." The process was "robust, fulsome, and resulted in a sale for fair market value," and the receiver had made "not only sufficient efforts, but superior efforts." Approving an offer from outside a court-ordered process "would have a chilling effect on future processes." As for the cross-application, "the monetary value of an offer is but one aspect of a proposed deal," and "While there has recently been some correspondence indicating a deposit of $1 million is in a trust account, no deposit has actually been paid." He approved the Redstone sale, dismissed the cross-application, sealed the price, and said the receiver had "navigated a complex sale process made more difficult by the last minute attempts of the Dhaliwals to subvert that process," per the transcript appended to the Fourth Report, App. H, pp. 133–138.