Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• In 0894045 B.C. Ltd. v. 1294778 B.C. Ltd., 1412023 B.C. Ltd. applied under ss 256 and 257 of the Land Title Act to cancel a certificate of pending litigation on the ground of hardship and inconvenience.
   
• A prior unsuccessful hardship application did not bar the renewed one, and a direct causal link between the CPL and both a refused mortgage renewal and a stalled sale established hardship.
   
• Security of $90,000 was tied to the likely value of the plaintiff's constructive trust claim over a $500,000 assignment fee, rather than the $750,000 plus interest it sought.
   
• Separately, in 1004364 B.C. Ltd. v Kelowna (City), a hotel owner sought an interim injunction restraining the City from advancing an expropriation of land subject to a statutory right of way.
   
• Challenges to the City's in camera, no-notice resolution and to the reasonableness of abandoning negotiations were found weak but not frivolous.
   
• Loss of title, and the bar on later challenges in s 51 of the Expropriation Act, established irreparable harm, while the City's alteration of the status quo tipped the balance of convenience.
   

Facts of the case

The first decision, released by Lamb J. on September 18, 2026, arose from a joint venture to buy and develop land in Delta, British Columbia. In January 2022, the defendant 1294778 B.C. Ltd. ("129") agreed to buy the Property from its previous owner ("THA") for $5,850,000, with completion later extended to August 31, 2022. In March 2022, the plaintiff 0894045 B.C. Ltd. ("089") and 129 entered into an Assignment Agreement and a Joint Venture Agreement, and 089 paid 129 $250,000 toward the deposit and a $500,000 assignment fee. On or about August 31, 2022, the defendant Gurdev Sandhu secured an extension to June 29, 2023, conditional on further deposits of $1,000,000 and $1,300,000 and interest from March 1, 2023.

Accounts of what followed conflict. Gurdev Sandhu says Balpreet Singh Sangha, 089's principal, failed to reimburse him for 089's $500,000 share of the September deposit and later agreed to forfeit both the deposit contribution and the assignment fee. Mr. Sangha says 129 agreed to repay the assignment fee, keep the $250,000, and exchange mutual releases (the "Termination Agreement"). A lawyer drafted that agreement on Mr. Sangha's instructions, but there is no evidence Gurdev Sandhu signed it [the source states "on behalf of 089"; context suggests 129 may have been intended]. Counsel for 089 demanded repayment on January 11, 2023, and the demand was rejected on January 16, 2023 [para 18 attributes the reply to counsel for 129 and Gurdev Sandhu; para 53 to counsel for 141]. On April 16, 2023, 129 assigned its purchase rights, including $2,800,000 in deposits, to 1412023 B.C. Ltd. ("141"). 129 accepted 089's alleged repudiation on May 16, 2023. According to Gurdev Sandhu, 141 completed the purchase on July 10, 2023 with its own funds and a $3,500,000 Blue Shore Financial Credit Union loan. The lender's commitment letter lists a purchase price of $5,985,000 [the source gives $5,850,000 at para 11].

089 sued and registered the CPL on April 25, 2024. A first application to cancel it, filed October 17, 2024, was dismissed in 2025 BCSC 359 [the source cites the plaintiff there as "894045 B.C. Ltd." and elsewhere dates the application to November 2024; the style of cause also lists "089045 B.C. Ltd." as a defendant by counterclaim]. By 2026, the loan of about $3,500,000 had passed a maturity date of April 10, 2025. There was no evidence of how the original June 29, 2024 balance due date had been renewed. The lender required discharge of both 089's CPL and a separate A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. CPL before renewal, and it was transferring the file to its Special Loans Department to pursue repayment. On June 9, 2026, the lender, now Beem Credit Union, said it would await the application's outcome but might continue enforcement. 141 has no income, and other lenders would not consider financing while a CPL was on title. On June 10, 2026, it accepted an offer of $3,950,000, conditional on confirmation that the CPLs would be discharged and on the purchaser obtaining financing, which the purchaser would not seek until they were removed.

The second decision, oral reasons of Milman J. delivered September 18, 2026 following a September 10 hearing, concerns lakefront land in Kelowna where the petitioner and its affiliates (the "Owner") operate the Hotel Eldorado and Manteo Resort. A public boardwalk crosses the land, mostly within a statutory right of way (SRW) registered in the City's favour on July 31, 2000, before the Owner acquired title. In earlier litigation, Betton J. refused the City an injunction because the Owner disclaimed any intent to interfere with public access. He declared some SRW provisions unenforceable, as the City conceded, but otherwise upheld the SRW (2023 BCSC 554, aff'd 2024 BCCA 418). The boardwalk has since fallen into disrepair and closed. The Owner has refused the City access for repairs until terms are agreed, including reimbursement of its maintenance expenses, which the City would cover only in part, and an indemnity for occupier's liability. On July 13, 2026, council passed a resolution in camera, without notice to the Owner, initiating expropriation of the strip in front of the hotel on which the SRW runs. The Owner petitioned to set it aside, requested an inquiry under the Expropriation Act, and applied for an injunction pending the petition [para 6 calls it an interlocutory injunction; para 38 grants an interim injunction].

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The CPL application turned on ss 256 and 257 of the Land Title Act. The applicant had to show hardship and inconvenience that was more than trifling and causally connected solely to the CPL (Liquor Barn Income Fund v Becker, 2011 BCCA 141). Under s 257(1)(a), the court may cancel a CPL on posted security where damages will adequately compensate its holder. Read with s 215, these provisions tie security to the claim to an interest in land that grounds the CPL (Wosnack v Ficych, 2022 BCCA 139). Section 257(3) directs attention to the likelihood of success and the range of possible damages.

The expropriation dispute engaged s 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter, which permits in camera meetings where public deliberation could reasonably be expected to harm the municipality's interests. Section 31 governs the resolution to carry out an expropriation. Under the Expropriation Act (EA), expropriation requires notice under s 6(1)(a) and approval under s 18, and the City is its own approving authority. Section 10 permits an owner to request an inquiry unless the project is a "linear development," a point the parties disputed. Section 14 narrows any inquiry, and s 4(2) bars disputing the authority's right to expropriate. After approval, payment is due within 30 days (s 20) and a vesting notice follows 30 days later (s 23). Abandonment is available under s 19 at least until payment, and s 51 then bars any challenge to validity.

Reasoning and analysis

Lamb J. held that the first CPL ruling was interlocutory and did not bar a fresh application on changed circumstances [the source states the court accepted "089's submission" on this point, although 089 was the party relying on estoppel]. 089 likened 141's refinancing difficulty to speculation about a potential business opportunity, but the court found the specific evidence sufficient. The lender's renewal condition, a broker's evidence on alternate financing, and 141's lack of income showed hardship, and there was a credible risk of enforcement and a foreclosure sale. Following Treasure Bay HK Limited v 1115830 B.C. Ltd., 2024 BCSC 294, the court found that 089's CPL did not need to be the only obstacle, provided it was directly linked to the hardship. That link existed for both the refinancing and the sale.

Damages would adequately compensate 089, which sought no share of title. The court found it appeared 089 asserted a constructive trust over the $500,000 assignment fee, and that its separate damages claim fell outside the CPL. 089 had done nothing beyond pleadings and responding to two applications in two and a half years. Even so, contemporaneous texts and a September 9, 2022 email to lawyer Eric Vandergriendt suggested a release had been discussed for Mr. Sangha. The January 16, 2023 letter's silence on forfeiture of the fee also undermined Gurdev Sandhu's evidence [the source refers at para 55 to "Mr. Sangha's reliability," and at para 57 to "089 and 141" and the fee "141 ought to have returned," where the agreements were between 089 and 129]. At that preliminary stage, the court found a significant likelihood of success on the constructive trust claim. It valued the claim as 20% of the Property's equity: about $90,000 at the sale price, or $468,000 at the BC Assessment value of $5,841,000. It rejected a director's undertaking as security for lack of supporting authority.

Milman J. applied the three-part test from R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5. The City argued that no duty of fairness arises before notice, that the EA limits owners' challenges, that the complaint was premature, that the Owner had unclean hands, and that its negotiating stance was not reviewable. The court found the fairness complaint weak but not frivolous, since the City gave no rationale for proceeding in camera and its decision to expropriate cannot be completely insulated from review (Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28). The City's promise to hear the Owner before the expropriation takes effect reduced the force of that complaint. The reasonableness challenge, which relied on Betton J.'s suggestion that the parties negotiate maintenance costs, was also found not frivolous. It would likely turn on whether abandoning negotiations was reasonable.

Setting aside the Owner's concern about a stranded patio and marina, which the City offered to address with an easement, the court found that a transfer of title would itself be irreparable. Once approval, payment and vesting occurred, s 51 would render the petition moot, and the City had not agreed to pause [para 31 refers to the City as "approving officer"; elsewhere as "approving authority"]. On the balance of convenience, applying Wizedemy Inc. v. Karras, 2024 BCSC 630, the court found that the City had altered the status quo by starting a process that would permanently change the parties' relationship. The public interest in reopening the boardwalk weighed the other way, and neither side's merits were strong enough to decide the matter. Any prejudice to the public would be temporary, and expropriation alone might not secure reliable public access soon.

Ruling and overall outcome

In the Delta matter, 141 succeeded: 089's CPL will be cancelled once 141 posts $90,000 as security, with directions available if the parties cannot agree on its source, and costs are in the cause. That sum is security rather than an award, so no monetary amount was ordered in 141's favour. In the Kelowna matter, the Owner obtained an interim injunction barring the City, as approving authority, from approving the expropriation under s 18 of the EA or resolving under s 31 of the Community Charter to proceed with it, pending the outcome of the proceeding or further order. No damages or other amount were awarded, and the reasons do not address costs.