Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Michael Rohland and SAS sought leave to discontinue their claims against Inga Zane, while co-plaintiff Gregory Rohland opposed, citing a joint venture agreement (JVA) he claimed assigned control of the litigation to him and Oregon Management Inc.

• Authenticity of the JVA was seriously questioned, as Michael Rohland swore it was a fraud recently fabricated by his brother, and it was produced for the first time only in January 2026 despite prior court-ordered document production.

• Greg Rohland's credibility was undermined by a prior criminal conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses involving forged documents, and a Federal Court finding that he was not credible in strong terms.

• Repeated certificates of pending litigation filed against Ms. Zane's Bowen Island property were characterized as part of a pattern of abuse of process, with multiple prior CPLs struck or cancelled by various judges.

• Under Rule 9-8(2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, a plaintiff is generally presumed entitled to discontinue unless special or unusual circumstances exist, and the court found no sufficient basis to deny discontinuance here.

• Denying the discontinuance would have rendered the upcoming 19-day trial unworkable due to irreconcilable positions among the plaintiffs and unresolved disputes over corporate control of SAS.

The dispute over a Bowen Island property

This case arose from a long-running dispute over a property on Bowen Island, British Columbia, owned by the defendant, Inga Zane, since 2016. The plaintiffs — Structured Annuity Solutions LLC ("SAS"), Oregon Management Inc. ("OM"), and Michael Rohland — brought claims alleging a beneficial interest in Ms. Zane's property and seeking compensation for debts and damages based on alleged contributions to the purchase price and unpaid construction services. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Michael Rohland contributed $110,000 toward the purchase price in exchange for an 18% interest in the property, that he assigned this interest to SAS, and that SAS and OM provided almost $1 million in labour, supplies, and equipment for home construction on the property, much of which remained unpaid.

Ms. Zane's position and the background relationships

Ms. Zane denied ever agreeing to grant an equity interest in her property. She maintained that the $110,000 was a loan made to her mother by either Gregory or Michael Rohland, and she had attempted to repay the funds on her mother's behalf, but the Rohlands refused. She also alleged she had entered into a $15,000 settlement agreement with OM for the construction work, which she had paid by bank draft to OM's law firm in trust. Notably, Ms. Zane and Gregory Rohland were former romantic partners, while Gregory and Michael Rohland are brothers. Gregory Rohland is an undischarged bankrupt believed to reside in the Lower Mainland, and Michael Rohland lives in Thailand.

The application to discontinue and the joint venture agreement

Michael Rohland sought to withdraw from the proceedings as a plaintiff, both personally and on behalf of SAS. He appeared by video from Thailand and disavowed his prior affidavits, stating they had been drafted by Greg Rohland and contained falsehoods. Gregory Rohland opposed the discontinuance, arguing that Michael Rohland and SAS had assigned their interest in the claims to OM under a written litigation-funding joint venture agreement (JVA), which purportedly gave Greg Rohland sole authority to represent them, negotiate settlements on their behalf, and granted OM a security interest in their litigation proceeds. He claimed OM had paid over $200,000 towards this litigation in legal fees and security for costs in reliance on the JVA.

Serious doubts about the JVA's authenticity

The court identified significant reasons to doubt the authenticity of the JVA and the associated documents. The JVA was produced for the first time in January 2026, despite prior court orders from November 2024 and March 2025 requiring production of all corporate and financial records of SAS and OM. Michael Rohland swore in his affidavit that the JVA was a fraud recently created by Gregory Rohland and that he had never seen it or signed it. Greg Rohland also refused requests by Ms. Zane and TCC for production of associated documents one would expect to assist, such as drafts and original correspondence between the brothers referring to it at any stage.

Greg Rohland's credibility and history of abuse of process

The court took note of Greg Rohland's severely compromised credibility. On June 10, 2025, he was convicted by the same court of obtaining property of over $5,000 by false pretenses, a judgment in which he was found to have forged an email and two memos. In a separate Federal Court decision dated December 17, 2024, a judge described his testimony as guided by a principle of never letting "the truth get in the way of a good story," characterizing his evidence as involving "disjointed utterances, obfuscation and misdirection." Additionally, the proceedings were marked by a pattern of abuse of process by Greg Rohland regarding certificates of pending litigation against Ms. Zane's property, including a second action struck as an abuse of process by Justice Crerar in February 2022, and a family law action similarly dismissed by Justice Wilkinson in April 2022. Multiple costs awards against the plaintiffs in these proceedings remained unpaid.

The companion action and TCC's involvement

Running alongside this case was a companion action in which TCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. sought to enforce a judgment against Greg Rohland for over $16 million. TCC held a section 38 order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act from Mr. Rohland's bankruptcy proceedings, allowing it to pursue claims against him for what TCC alleged was his personal interest in Ms. Zane's property. Greg Rohland denied any personal interest, instead supporting the claims made by Michael Rohland, SAS, and OM against Ms. Zane. TCC supported the discontinuance application.

The court's ruling and outcome

Justice Coval granted leave for SAS and Michael Rohland to discontinue all their claims against Inga Zane. The court reasoned that denying discontinuance would necessitate another adjournment of the already-scheduled 19-day trial, and that the trial would be unworkable with plaintiffs at odds over corporate control. The late production of the JVA was found to be unfair and prejudicial to Ms. Zane and TCC, and not in compliance with previous court orders. According to SAS's Utah corporate records, Michael Rohland remained its sole managing member with corporate authority to bind it. The court also noted that OM's own claims for construction work remained intact, and that Greg Rohland and OM could pursue separate claims against Michael Rohland and SAS for breach of the JVA if those were indeed valid agreements. The ancillary orders — cancelling Michael Rohland's certificate of pending litigation against Ms. Zane's property and directing payment of costs awarded against SAS from security for costs held in court — were also granted. No specific monetary award was made in favour of a successful party beyond the release of previously posted security for costs to Ms. Zane; the exact amount payable from the security for costs was not specified in the judgment.