Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Foreclosure proceedings involve a unique 162-acre property between Golden, B.C. and Lake Louise, Alberta, with an historic hunting lodge and cabins.

• Extensive property damage allegedly occurred sometime after October 20, 2025, and before the Group attended the property in early January 2026, leading to non-completion of the purchase.

• Contractual interpretation of the "as-is / where-is" clause is in dispute, with the petitioner arguing it required completion regardless of damage, while the Group claims breach of contract due to non-disclosure.

• Ownership of Wolfenden Ventures Ltd. is uncertain, with conflicting evidence from Daniel White's affidavit and revelations about an Alberta numbered company and the Dan White Family Trust.

• Associate Judge Peck previously identified triable issues that were not summary in nature, pushing the matter to a judge's chambers hearing.

• CRO Holdings claims to have acquired the entirety of interest in Wolfenden through an October 2025 MOU, raising further questions about property ownership and complicated by pending litigation in Texas.

The property and the parties involved

This case centers on foreclosure proceedings brought by Van Maren Financial (2018) Ltd. against Wolfenden Ventures Ltd. and Daniel Alexander White in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The property at the heart of the dispute is a unique 162-acre parcel located between Golden, British Columbia, and Lake Louise, Alberta, featuring an historic hunting lodge and cabins and not subject to development restrictions. Van Maren Financial holds a mortgage and assignment of rents against the property, with Wolfenden Ventures Ltd. apparently the registered owner. Neither Wolfenden nor White, through their counsel of record, appeared at the January 26, 2026 hearing before Justice K. Wolfe.

The foreclosure process and the court-approved sale

Van Maren Financial obtained an order nisi in October 2024 and was subsequently granted an order for conduct of sale on May 8, 2025, with the sale being subject to court approval unless the parties otherwise agreed in writing. The property was listed for sale. There were a number of offers and further complications resulting from those offers, which culminated in a hearing before the Court on October 20, 2025, where the Court allowed potential bidders to put forward silent bids for the property. A group of three individuals — Mohamed Irfan Vohra, Sayidakhatoon Vohra, and Douglas Allan Zimmerer (the "Group") — was the successful bidder at that time, and their contract of purchase and sale was approved by the Court, with a completion date originally set for December 19, 2025. The parties agreed to extend the completion date to January 5, 2026. While deposits and other funds were paid, the deal did not complete on that date.

The dispute over property damage and contractual obligations

The Group says they learned in December 2025 that there was extensive damage to the property. That damage is alleged to have occurred sometime after October 20, 2025, and before the time when two members of the Group attended the property in early January around the extended completion date. Those Group members provided some affidavit evidence of the damage they say was caused to the property. The Group subsequently filed a notice of civil claim claiming breach of contract and specific performance, arguing that non-disclosure of the damage amounts to breach of the contract. They wish to be able to complete subject to understanding the extent of the damage and potentially some abatement because of the alleged damage. There is no dispute there is an insurance claim in relation to the property as a result of the damage.

The "as-is / where-is" clause

The petitioner contended that the contract has an extraordinary "as-is / where-is" clause that means the Group was required to complete the purchase even if there was extensive damage between the October contract of purchase and sale being approved by the Court and the January completion date. The petitioner's counsel asserted that the law is against the Group on this point of contractual interpretation but candidly, and in the Court's view appropriately, admitted that all the case law on which the petitioner relies arises in instances where the Court heard substantive arguments on the contractual interpretation points. None of the cases cited are ones where the Court made a decision at this stage of a proceeding that the contractual language forecloses any possible argument or claim.

Ownership uncertainty surrounding Wolfenden Ventures Ltd.

Significant confusion arose regarding the ownership of Wolfenden Ventures Ltd. A company called CRO Holdings appeared at the hearing, as it had at a previous appearance on January 12, 2026, to advise the Court that CRO Holdings has acquired the entirety of the interest in Wolfenden, raising real questions about the ownership of the property. In evidence before the Court was a memorandum of understanding or "MOU" from October 2025 in respect of the alleged acquisition. Daniel White swore an affidavit on January 22, 2026, in which he appeared to dispute whether the MOU has actually been perfected or is in force. He deposed that he was the 100-percent shareholder of Wolfenden Ventures Ltd. Yet counsel for the petitioner advised the Court, on behalf of the counsel who commissioned White's affidavit, that that particular statement in the sworn affidavit is actually inaccurate, and instead Wolfenden Ventures Ltd. is owned by an Alberta numbered company, which is, in turn, owned by the Dan White Family Trust (the "Trust"). White's legal relationship to the Trust was not in evidence. Additionally, there is also pending litigation in Texas, the law of which is said to govern the MOU. That litigation implicates at least some of the confusion around Wolfenden and White's status and also implicates the property directly given express references to the property in the language of the MOU.

The adjournment application and the court's analysis

The Court considered two applications: the petitioner's application to approve a sale of the property and the Group's oral application for an adjournment. Applying the framework from Navarro v. Doig River First Nation, 2015 BCSC 2173, Justice Wolfe determined that the paramount consideration was the interests of justice in ensuring a fair hearing on the merits. The Court identified several reasons warranting an adjournment: the petitioner's application, if granted on the merits, would result in a final order in respect of land, and undoing a sale of land down the road is not an easy feat; there was a substantive dispute about whether there is a justifiable reason for the Group not closing on January 5, 2026, which would give the Group a right to continue as a successful purchaser, a matter of contractual interpretation requiring comprehensive submissions; there was uncertainty about the extent of damage to the property, with White's affidavit suggesting the damage is not problematic or extensive, contrary to the evidence provided by the Group; and the ownership and control of Wolfenden remained unclear.

The ruling and terms of adjournment

Justice K. Wolfe granted the Group's application for an adjournment, finding that the Court was not satisfied it had the information necessary to make a decision about what is just and equitable between the parties. The Court accepted there is some prejudice to the petitioner from the delay and from an adjournment, but in the Court's view it was not as significant as the prejudice that would flow to the Group if they are not allowed to pursue the triable issues they have raised and the additional information which has come to light late in the day. The matter was adjourned to a full-day long chambers hearing, with counsel directed to use the February 10, 2026 booking date to attempt to secure a long chambers hearing in April. The Court ordered cross-examination on affidavit number 4 of Daniel White, sworn January 22, 2026, pursuant to Rule 22-1(4)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, to be completed before the matter is reset for a long chambers hearing and in any event before the end of the day on March 13, 2026. At least three days before the cross-examination, White was ordered to deliver all documents in his care and control, or in the care and control of Wolfenden Ventures Ltd., relating to the insurance claim and the current state of damage to the property, as well as any reparations, repairs, or efforts made to address the damage. The Group was granted liberty to file an application for a stay of the foreclosure proceedings and/or referral to the trial list and/or consolidation of the foreclosure proceedings with the Group's civil claim, on or before February 6, 2026, to be scheduled on the same day as the petitioner's rescheduled application. Costs of the application were not addressed, with the Court indicating they should be dealt with by the justice who hears the full-day long chambers hearing. No specific monetary amount was awarded or determined at this stage, as the ruling was procedural in nature, focused on ensuring a fair adjudication on the merits at a future date.