Yeo Towns: no consent from HCRA, and a motion to replace Fusioncorp

On September 21, 2026, the day before its motion was to be heard, the receiver completing the Yeo Towns townhouse project in Belleville heard from the Home Construction Regulatory Authority. HCRA, the receiver reports, "was not prepared to consent to Fusioncorp continuing in its role as construction manager of the Project and, for that reason, would not support the Project Completion Agreement" — the arrangement the receiver had worked out with Fusioncorp Developments Inc. and had sought Tarion's and HCRA's approval of. HCRA advised, though, that it would consent to an assignment of Fusioncorp's construction management contract to 59 Project Management Inc., "which is acting as an advisor to the Receiver on the Project." On September 22 the receiver "withdrew its motion seeking the Court's approval of the Project Completion Agreement while it negotiated" a replacement with 59 PM, per the Supplement to the Fourth Report, Oct. 19, 2026, paras. 2.0.1–2.0.2.

The withdrawn agreement, reported here on September 18, would have kept Fusioncorp on the job under delegates who, the receiver said, had been involved in the day-to-day management of the project, and would have routed the money owed to suppliers through Fusioncorp's counsel, in trust, per the Fourth Report of the Receiver, Sept. 18, 2026, para. 6.0.4. It was the receiver's response to what it calls the Fund Diversion Issue: its statement, repeated in the October 19 notice of motion, that during the first week of September it learned that certain funds it had paid Fusioncorp "for the purpose of satisfying amounts owed by Fusioncorp to subcontractors and trade suppliers on the Project had been diverted" by Fusioncorp's principal, per the Notice of Motion, Oct. 19, 2026, para. (f). No filing by Fusioncorp answering that account is in the record.

What the court granted on September 22

The order Justice Kershman made that day deals with selling. Counsel for the receiver, AlixPartners Restructuring, Inc. (formerly KSV Restructuring Inc.), for DUCA Financial Services Credit Union Ltd., which applied for the receivership, and for Fusioncorp were heard by judicial videoconference, per the Order of Justice Kershman, Sept. 22, 2026, recitals. The endorsement, written by hand on the motion record's back page, is four sentences: "Matter heard. For oral reasons given, order to go as signed. There may be issues with the Registrar in Ottawa signing the Orders to sell each unit, in which case counsel can come back to Court to seek further instructions. Order accordingly," per the Endorsement of Justice Kershman, Sept. 22, 2026, p. 1.

The units in question are the 37 whose buyers have terminated or rescinded their agreements of purchase and sale; 24 buyers have not, per the Fourth Report of the Receiver, Sept. 18, 2026, para. 3.0.3. The order authorizes the receiver to enter into its listing agreement with Forest Hill Real Estate Inc. and approves the sale process described in the Fourth Report. It then deletes subsection 3(k) of the appointment order in its entirety and replaces it. For property other than the units, the receiver may now sell without the court's approval up to $250,000 a transaction, provided the aggregate does not exceed $500,000. A single unit, with any parking spot or locker that goes with it, may be sold without the court's approval if the total accepted sale price "is not less than the percentage of the target price for that Available Unit" set out in Confidential Appendix 1 to the Fourth Report, and the agreement of purchase and sale is substantially in the template form attached to the Fourth Report, per the Order of Justice Kershman, Sept. 22, 2026, paras. 4–5, 7. The old subsection had capped unapproved sales at $150,000 a transaction within the same $500,000 aggregate, per the Receivership Order, Aug. 12, 2024, para. 3(k). The appendix that sets out the target prices is sealed until every available unit has been sold or the court orders otherwise, per the Order of Justice Kershman, Sept. 22, 2026, para. 11 and the Fourth Report of the Receiver, Sept. 18, 2026, para. 5.0.1.

The closing paperwork goes to a registrar. The order approves a form of approval and vesting order; the receiver and its counsel are authorized to complete it with the purchaser's name, the unit's legal description and the encumbrances to be discharged or permitted, and counsel presents the completed order to the Registrar of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Ottawa, with a receiver's certificate attaching the agreement of purchase and sale. The registrar is "authorized, empowered and directed to sign, issue and enter each Completed Vesting Order as presented to it in accordance with this Order, without the need for any attendance in Court by counsel for any party," per the Order of Justice Kershman, Sept. 22, 2026, paras. 8–10. That signature is the one the endorsement's third sentence says may run into issues in Ottawa.

The owner representative

The receiver came back on October 19 with an Assignment and Amendment Agreement among itself, Fusioncorp and 59 PM, dated as of that day, and asked the court for an order authorizing and directing it to enter into the agreement, per the Notice of Motion, Oct. 19, 2026, para. (a). 59 PM has worked on this site before. The project had been exposed to the elements for several months when the receivership began, and the receiver retained 59 PM to winterize it, installing, among other things, insulation and tarps to protect the interior footings from frost and air barriers over the window openings. In January 2025 it was one of the two firms the receiver invited to propose for completing the project; Fusioncorp was selected, per the Second Report of the Receiver, Apr. 30, 2025, paras. 2.2.1, 3.0.1, 3.0.3. The supplement now describes 59 PM as the "owner representative" for the project, and says that as a result of that role it is familiar with the project's status and the work required to complete it, per the Supplement to the Fourth Report, Oct. 19, 2026, para. 2.0.3.