Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Three Point Capital Corp. initiated foreclosure proceedings against Jennifer Natalia Monn for mortgage default since April 19, 2025.

• Ms. Monn's hearing impairment necessitated procedural accommodations, including adjournments and written-only submissions.

• Despite multiple opportunities, the respondent failed to timely file a response to petition or supporting affidavits as required by court rules.

• The petitioner's accounting was contested by Ms. Monn but ultimately validated through detailed affidavit evidence from Three Point's representative.

• Court granted leave to backdate the six-month redemption period to October 16, 2025, the original hearing date.

• Costs were awarded to Three Point on Scale B, applicable to contested foreclosure proceedings.

Background and parties involved

This case involves a foreclosure proceeding brought by Three Point Capital Corp. against Jennifer Natalia Monn in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Three Point, the petitioner, filed its petition on July 15, 2025, seeking an order nisi of foreclosure. Ms. Monn, the respondent, was served by alternative service on September 3, 2025. The matter was heard before Associate Judge Harper, with P. Crous as counsel for Three Point and Ms. Monn representing herself.

Procedural history and accommodations

The proceedings encountered several delays due to Ms. Monn's hearing impairment. At the application for order nisi on October 16, 2025, Ms. Monn appeared but was not able to understand the proceedings because she advised she has a hearing impairment. Ms. Monn advised the court that she could read lips, but the court concluded the application should be adjourned so that Ms. Monn could be better prepared. The matter was adjourned to October 21, 2025. At the subsequent hearing, Ms. Monn still had not filed a response to petition or any affidavit. The court was not satisfied that an oral hearing was effective and therefore ordered the parties to attend a case planning conference. The case planning conference was held on December 15, 2025, at which time the court ordered that the hearing would proceed only by way of written submissions filed by each party.

The respondent's position and defense

Ms. Monn filed a form of response to petition on November 5, 2025, seeking an extension of 90 days to seek legal representation to present all written submissions the court requires. She also stated in that document that she had obtained commitment financing in order to pay out Three Point. Ms. Monn's written submissions were submitted by counsel who assisted her for the limited purpose of preparing the submissions. In her affidavit filed January 19, 2026, Ms. Monn stated she is prepared to seek refinancing for her property in order to redeem by the proposed date of April 16, 2026, but that she would need a justifiable and ascertainable amount to inform such efforts. Ms. Monn stated that she does not understand how Three Point has arrived at the amounts they are claiming. Attached to Ms. Monn's affidavit is a copy of a letter dated July 3, 2025 that she wrote to counsel for Three Point querying Three Point's accounting.

Evidence and the petitioner's accounting

The court was satisfied that the evidence provided by Three Point is accurate. Leanne Wilson, a representative of Three Point, provided an affidavit filed January 21, 2026 in which she carefully and thoroughly explains Three Point's accounting. The court found this to be a straightforward application for order nisi, noting that Ms. Monn has been and remains in default under the mortgage since April 19, 2025, and that the affidavit evidence establishes that an order nisi should be granted.

Ruling and outcome

Associate Judge Harper granted the orders sought in the Statement of Relief Sought filed on December 20, 2025, and approved the form of the draft order provided in the Petition Record that was filed on January 21, 2026. The court agreed with Three Point's position that the six-month redemption period should start to run as of October 16, 2025, the date of the original hearing. The court reasoned that the evidence provided by Three Point on October 16, 2025 supported an order nisi being granted on that date, and that the court had granted Ms. Monn time to respond despite her failure to abide by the rules regarding time for filing a response to petition. The calculation of the amounts owing to be inserted into the order will be as of the date of the release of these reasons. Ms. Monn was ordered to pay Three Point its costs on Scale B, the scale that applies where a foreclosure proceeding is contested. The signature of Ms. Monn on the formal order was dispensed with. No exact amount owing was specified in the judgment.