Justice Myers put the situation in two sentences on the first day. "The debtor is a Canadian corporation. It is insolvent and, for all intents and purposes, out of business." Then the fact that makes it a proceeding rather than a liquidation: "But it has 65 houses left to sell," per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 17, 2026, para. 1.
They are the unsold units of a 147-townhouse project on Victoria Park Avenue, and the company that owns them cannot fund the selling of them. So its secured creditor is doing it — Findev Lending Inc. applied for the initial order, obtained it on July 17, 2026, and is paying for the process, per First Report of the Monitor, July 23, 2026, paras. 1, 8(c).
A lender that asked for less than it could have
What is unusual here is not the creditor-driven filing. It is the priority the creditor did not seek.
Findev proposed no DIP charge for its borrowings at all. It proposed an administration charge that ranks behind the mortgagees rather than ahead of them. It undertook to keep the mortgagees current, and it came to court having already signed forbearance agreements with the first two, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 17, 2026, para. 2. Justice Myers said what he made of that: 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 architecture is set out in the orders. Three registered charges sit on title to the unsold units and their holders are named "Unaffected Secured Creditors" — the stay does not apply to them at all: Windsor Family Credit Union Limited, registered June 13, 2022; Firm Capital Mortgage Fund Inc., registered July 30, 2025; and Westmount Guarantee Services Inc., registered October 21, 2020. The administration charge is subordinated to all three and ranks in fourth position against everything the debtor owns, and it is subordinate not merely to the charges but to the indebtedness they secure and to all proceeds securing it, per Amended and Restated Initial Order, July 24, 2026, paras. 24–25.
On top of that, the initial order requires the applicant — not the debtor — to pay everything owing on the Windsor Family Credit Union and Firm Capital charges as it falls due, including arrears standing at the date of the order and every fee and expense chargeable under those mortgages, per First Report of the Monitor, July 23, 2026, paras. 8(f)–(g).
The monitor is Albert Gelman Inc., and it holds more than the usual watching brief: it may cease, downsize or shut down operations, dispose of redundant assets up to $50,000 a transaction and $500,000 in aggregate, terminate or lay off employees, pursue refinancing subject to court approval, and operate the debtor's bank accounts in its own discretion, per First Report of the Monitor, July 23, 2026, para. 8(d).
What July 24 was for
The initial stay ran only to July 24, and the return was narrow. Justice Myers listed what was actually sought: confirmation that the proceeding would go forward, an increase in the security for administrative costs, and attention to a technicality in the title of the lawsuit, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, para. 4.
He granted it. The administration charge went from a maximum of $100,000 to a maximum of $500,000 — five times the cap, in the same fourth position — and the stay now runs to October 15, 2026, per First Report of the Monitor, July 23, 2026, para. 8(e) and Amended and Restated Initial Order, July 24, 2026, paras. 10, 24. The reason given for the increase is the plain one: the costs of trying to maximize the debtor's value have to be provided for, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, para. 5.
The shape of the sale, and the part that is not decided
The applicant intends to seek approval of a process to sell all sixty-five units en bloc, supported by a stalking horse bid. Justice Myers took a paragraph to explain what that is, in language written for someone who does not do this for a living: "an opening bid that shows interested parties that there is at least one person willing to buy the properties on disclosed terms. It sets a floor price for others to try to beat if they want to buy the properties," per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, para. 2.
The monitor's report says what the bid being negotiated actually is, and it is not a purchase of houses. The monitor has been working with the applicant on a sale process and "negotiating a form of stalking horse agreement of purchase and sale which contemplates the Applicant's purchase of shares in the Debtor through a reverse vesting order mechanism," per First Report of the Monitor, July 23, 2026, para. 11(a).
None of that was approved on July 24, and Justice Myers said so before anyone could read the order otherwise: nothing decided that day approves a stalking horse bid or the idea of an en bloc sale, and whether those or other processes are appropriate awaits a later motion, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, para. 3.
Sixteen owners, and the rule they ran into
The people already living there came to court too. Yvonne Tsui appeared on behalf of sixteen owners of units bought from the developer, asking to be recognised as their representative and raising what the endorsement records as numerous issues the owners have with the developer.
Her difficulty was structural, and Justice Myers set it out rather than brushing past it. The natural body to speak for unit owners is the condominium corporation — but the debtor still owns the sixty-five unsold units, and that holding gives it effective control of the corporation's board of directors. The owners' own institution is, in practical terms, the developer's, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, para. 6.
Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to order group representation, but Rule 15.01(1) requires a party acting in a representative capacity to be represented by a lawyer, and on that point the court has no discretion to give. Justice Myers cited Direk v. Ontario (Attorney General) and Radzevicius v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal for the proposition that a representative party must have counsel and that the court cannot relieve against the requirement, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, paras. 7–10.
What he told them to do next is the part worth reading. Consult an insolvency lawyer; the lawyer can advise on funding; then decide whether to incur the cost — a decision he suggested "may turn at least in part on what the lawyer can tell them about whether their concerns are actually at risk or properly dealt with in this proceeding." If they retain one, that lawyer will know how to negotiate a representation agreement and order with the other parties, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, paras. 11–12.
Next
Counsel for the applicant and for the monitor were directed to speak with the other interested parties and try to agree a schedule for the motion to implement a sales process, then book it through the Commercial List Office — or, failing agreement, take a case conference to have a schedule and a motion date set, per Endorsement of Justice Myers, July 24, 2026, para. 14.
Three months of stay, sixty-five houses, and a lender that will be bidding for the company that owns them. The motion that decides how they are sold has not been scheduled yet.
Every fact above names the filing it was read from.
Case pages are free to browse. The subscription unlocks the filings themselves, and our full analysis.
Subscribe