The lender as applicant

On July 17, 2026, Findev Lending Inc. asked the Ontario Superior Court to grant CCAA protection to a company that owed it money, and then asked for less than it was entitled to.

Justice Myers set out the position in three sentences. The debtor was insolvent and, for all intents and purposes, out of business, but it had sixty-five houses left to sell. The applicant was funding the process. And then: "The Applicant has proposed no DIP charge for its borrowings. It proposes an Admin charge behind the mortgagees in priority. The Applicant will keep the mortgagees current and has entered into forbearance agreements with the first two mortgagees," per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 17, 2026, paras. 1–2.

A lender in that position had a simpler option. Section 243 of the BIA and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act would have given it a receiver over the same assets, with a receiver's charge ranking first and no stay protecting the borrower from anybody. Instead it applied under the CCAA, left the mortgagees outside the stay entirely, put the administration charge in fourth place, and undertook to pay the senior mortgages as they fell due out of its own pocket, per Initial Order, July 17, 2026, paras. 24–25.

Justice Myers' comment on that choice is the reason this note exists: the applicant "not taking an aggressive stand seeking all manner of priming charges establishes in my mind a very reasonable approach," per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 17, 2026, p. 3.

The creditor-initiated CCAA is not new, and it is not rare. This record holds ten CCAA proceedings commenced since 2025 on the application of a bank, credit union, private debt fund or mortgage lender rather than of the debtor — a count of our own dockets, not a market statistic. What is worth a professional's attention is not the frequency. It is that these applicants are asking for very different things once the order is granted, and getting them.

Findev Lending — subordinate everything

Ontario, initial order July 17, 2026, Albert Gelman Inc. as monitor. The debtor is a townhouse developer with sixty-five unsold units out of a 147-unit project.

Three registered charges sit on the units, and their holders — Windsor Family Credit Union Limited, Firm Capital Mortgage Fund Inc. and Westmount Guarantee Services Inc. — are named "Unaffected Secured Creditors" in the order. The stay does not apply to them, and nothing in the order affects their rights and remedies. The administration charge ranks fourth against all property of the debtor and its proceeds, subordinated to those three registered charges by instrument number — Windsor Family Credit Union's of June 13, 2022, Firm Capital's of July 30, 2025 and Westmount's of October 21, 2020 — and subordinate as well to the indebtedness each secures. There is no interim lender's charge in the order, because the applicant sought none, per Initial Order, July 17, 2026, paras. 15, 24–25.

The applicant also carries the senior debt service itself, undertaking to keep the mortgagees current rather than have the estate do it, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 17, 2026, para. 2.