700 Bidwell Holdings Inc., 700 Bidwell Limited Partnership, 700 Bidwell Property Inc. and Westbank Holdings Ltd., entities associated with a proposed purpose-built rental apartment development in downtown Vancouver, were placed under a limited receivership on November 4, 2026, on application by Bank of Montreal, owed more than $36 million. Justice Loo authorized the immediate appointment of MNP as receiver but delayed its authority to conduct a sale until February 13, 2027, giving the respondents a final opportunity to refinance or sell the property themselves. The Court also restricted the receiver's immediate powers, allowing the existing rental business to continue under the respondents' management rather than placing it under the receiver's control.
The proceedings concern lands in downtown Vancouver currently occupied by two residential buildings generating rental income, with plans for the development and construction of a multi-unit, purpose-built rental apartment building. The property consists of individually strata-titled units operated as rental accommodation. 700 Bidwell Property Inc. holds legal title as nominee and trustee for 700 Bidwell Limited Partnership, while 700 Bidwell Holdings Inc. obtained financing from BMO to fund the property's acquisition, development and construction costs. The other respondents provided unlimited guarantees of the debt.
The borrowers had failed to make required monthly interest payments since at least September 2025 and did not repay the outstanding debt following the bank's demand in January 2026. By the time of the receivership hearing, the debt had increased by more than $914,850 in accrued interest since the demand, plus costs, with additional interest accumulating at approximately $5,150 per day. More than $300,000 in interest had accrued since BMO filed its petition on August 12, 2026. The bank also alleged that rental income was not being remitted as required under its financing arrangements.
BMO sought the appointment of a receiver to sell the property and recover its outstanding debt, arguing that it had lost confidence in the respondents' ability to obtain refinancing or complete an out-of-court sale. The respondents opposed the application, maintaining that the bank had failed to establish any financial risk to its security and that foreclosure would provide a less intrusive means of recovery. Justice Loo agreed that the bank's evidence was deficient in several respects, noting that no valuation evidence had been presented and that there was no indication of mismanagement, asset deterioration or any need to protect the property. The Court was also critical of the bank's reliance on generalized assertions about the project's complexity without sufficient supporting facts.
Nevertheless, Justice Loo concluded that a receivership was justified given the prolonged payment defaults, the respondents' failure to advance any concrete repayment proposal and the bank's contractual right to seek a receiver. The Court also accepted that the property's strata ownership structure and existing rental arrangements could complicate a realization process, making a receiver-supervised transaction appropriate. The judge emphasized that the respondents had been given repeated opportunities to address their defaults but had failed to do so, while interest continued to accumulate and rental revenues were not being remitted to the lender.
Rather than granting the bank's request for immediate sale authority, the Court imposed a four-month redemption period measured from the October 13 hearing date. The receiver may exercise certain limited powers immediately, including arranging insurance for the property, but cannot assume conduct of the sale, enter into sale agreements or seek approval of sale agreements before February 13, 2027. If the mortgage debt remains outstanding at that time, additional powers will become available to the receiver. Justice Loo declined to authorize the receiver to manage the operating rental business, citing the absence of evidence that such intervention was necessary and the additional costs that would be imposed on the respondents. The companies must continue operating the rental business and immediately remit rental revenues, net of expenses, to the receiver.
MNP is receiver. Counsel includes Fasken for BMO, Kornfeld for the respondents, and Cassels for the receiver.
