Waterloo Innovation Network: a data centre unsold, and no report ordered

The building at 176 Columbia Street West in Waterloo has 8 megawatts of power, and in the fall of 2025 its receiver asked the power supplier, Enova Power Corp., for 13, per the Fourth Report of the Receiver, Jan. 9, 2026, paras. 33–34. The Fuller Landau Group Inc. calls the property "a hybrid office/data centre," in the Supplement to the Fourth Report, Jan. 16, 2026, para. 11; the trade publication DatacenterDynamics has described it as a former BlackBerry facility. Until September 2025 its data centre tenant was Columbia Data Vault Inc., which describes its business as "providing artificial intelligence data hosting services" from the building, per its Notice of Cross-Motion, Aug. 29, 2025, para. (g). When the receiver interviewed brokers, it reported, "understanding Enova's position with respect to power for the Real Property was a critical factor in determining a 'go to market' strategy for the building," per the Third Report of the Receiver, Aug. 22, 2025, para. 51 (App. F).

On September 8, 2026, more than eighteen months after the receiver's appointment, counsel for Mark Arbour and Waterloo Innovation Network PM Inc., described in an earlier endorsement as non-party creditors of the owner, convened a case conference before Justice W.D. Black because, in the judge's words, Arbour "is frustrated by the fact that the Receiver, having conducted the SISP, has not yet concluded a sale transaction," per the Endorsement of Justice W.D. Black, Sept. 8, 2026, para. 1 and the Endorsement of Justice W.D. Black, Mar. 28, 2025, para. 16. Arbour asked, in effect, for an order compelling the receiver to explain in a report why the property had not been sold. The receiver answered that it is "optimistic that it will have a firm and binding agreement in hand in the near term," at which point it will report and seek approval, and that because the details are confidential it was not inclined to provide the report Arbour wanted, per the Endorsement, Sept. 8, 2026, paras. 2–3.

Justice Black declined to give the direction. "As I advised counsel, I am confident that the Receiver and its counsel, as officers of the court, are proceeding in the best interests of stakeholders, and that they will continue to do so." If an agreement is concluded, the parties can expect an approval motion; "If no such deal is concluded, I expect that the Receiver may have to revisit the possibility of re-opening the SISP," per the Endorsement, Sept. 8, 2026, paras. 4–6.

One building, two charges

The owner is Waterloo Innovation Network 2 Inc., and the Columbia Street property is, as Justice Osborne put it in March 2025, "indeed its only material asset," per the Endorsement of Justice Osborne, Mar. 5, 2025, para. 3. Its co-debtor, Waterloo Innovation Network 3 Inc., formerly Waterloo Innovation Network Inc., is inactive, and Michael Wekerle is sole director of both. Under a 2018 letter agreement amended six times, the lender took a charge on the property registered at $8 million and raised by amendment to $30 million. Don Rogers, a managing director of Waygar Capital Inc., then the lender's agent, swore that payments over the loan's term totalled $8,591,350, the last in December 2021, and that the repayment date was October 15, 2024; that October, the debtors said they were selling the property, a sale that had not materialized when he swore his affidavit, per the Affidavit of Don Rogers, Feb. 3, 2025, paras. 3, 5–6, 20–22 and the Fourth Report, para. 3.

The demand of December 27, 2024 put the debt under the credit agreement at $32,193,111.56. From the owner the lender demanded $47,193,111.56, because Waterloo Innovation Network 2 had also guaranteed, to a limit of $15 million, loans to 2446928 Ontario Inc. (formerly Elmorealty Inc.), El Mocambo Entertainment Inc. and El Mocambo Productions Inc., and had backed the guarantee with a second $15 million charge registered on June 26, 2023; those borrowers owed $55,362,203.98. The only other PPSA registrant was Wags Investments Incorporated, per the Affidavit of Don Rogers, paras. 9, 14–19, 25; Notice of Application, para. 2(h).

Justice Black appointed the receiver on February 14, 2025, under s. 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, without opposition from the debtors: "In my view there is no question of the debt owing and no doubt of the default on the debt." He accepted Aird & Berlis LLP acting for both lender and receiver, with David Preger of Dickinson Wright engaged as independent counsel should a conflict arise, and heard that the receiver expected to return about a sale "to a potential purchaser who has been identified within a sales process that has been ongoing," per the Endorsement of Justice W.D. Black, Feb. 14, 2025, paras. 5–7, 9–10. On July 4, 2025, Ninepoint Partners LP replaced Waygar as the lender's agent, per the Fourth Report, para. 2.

The HIVE agreement and the power question

By March 5, 2025, the receiver had an offer from HIVE Digital Technologies Ltd., anticipated accepting it, and had received no others, per the Endorsement of Justice Osborne, para. 12. On April 24, 2025, after what the First Report calls "lengthy discussions and negotiations," the receiver and HIVE signed a conditional agreement of purchase and sale; the receiver kept its terms out of court and planned, if the condition was waived, to use it as the baseline in a wider sale, per the First Report of the Receiver, Apr. 28, 2025, para. 37 (App. B). HIVE asked for extensions of the condition, and at 2:59 p.m. on July 15, 2025 its counsel confirmed that it would not be waived, per the Third Report, para. 48 (App. F). In November the receiver refunded the deposit, with the interest it had earned, in two payments totalling $4,036,742.49, per the Supplement to the Fourth Report, para. 14.

HIVE had applied to Enova for more power, and once it decided not to proceed, the receiver chose to understand the building's capacity before going to market. It engaged Ernst & Young Inc. on September 23, 2025. On October 21 it engaged Stantec Consulting Ltd. to assess converting the existing 8 MW to 13 MW, applied to Enova for a 13 MW system on November 20, and in January 2026 learned that Enova wanted Stantec's preliminary drawings before a revised application. "The 13 MW allocation to the Property is time sensitive," the receiver told the court; if granted, it will lapse at a time Enova specifies, and bidders "will, therefore, need to move quickly before the allocation expires," per the Fourth Report, paras. 19(c), 32–36.