Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Nicola Mortgage Corporation sought a final order of foreclosure against a residential property at 3101 Solomon Way in Terrace, B.C., after the mortgage fell into arrears and multiple forbearance agreements expired without repayment.

• Mr. Salinger's application to stay the foreclosure pending his related civil claim (the 22685 Action) was denied, as the court found he failed to establish a prima facie case or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

• Clause 4(d) of the April 2025 Forbearance Agreement, which committed the respondents to irrevocably consent to a final order of foreclosure upon expiry, was held enforceable and operated as an estoppel against Mr. Salinger's request for a redemption period extension.

• Allegations of collusion between the sole local appraiser and Nicola were found to rest on hearsay from an unnamed lawyer and were insufficient to support claims of civil conspiracy or unlawful interference.

• Whether the local venue rule under s. 21(2) of the Law and Equity Act was properly displaced was resolved in Nicola's favour, as Associate Judge Keim's order allowing the hearing in any registry was made on notice and with an opportunity for Mr. Salinger to be heard.

• No reasonable prospect of payment was demonstrated, as the respondent failed to secure a firm refinancing commitment sufficient to discharge the mortgage indebtedness of $467,787.60 plus accruing daily interest.

Background and parties
Nicola Mortgage Corporation held a first mortgage registered on March 8, 2021 against a residential property at 3101 Solomon Way in Terrace, British Columbia, owned by Avraham Rod Salinger. A second mortgage on the property was held by 0966040 B.C. Ltd. At the time the foreclosure petition was filed, a charge had also been registered on behalf of Mr. Salinger's former spouse, Krystyna Salfinger (also known as Krystyna Salinger), as represented by the Director of Maintenance Enforcement, although that matter appeared to have since been resolved. The mortgage went into default, and on January 25, 2023, Nicola commenced foreclosure proceedings by way of petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Terrace Registry.

History of the forbearance agreements and prior proceedings
In February 2023, Mr. Salinger persuaded Nicola that more value could be obtained from the property if he were permitted to carry out repairs. The parties entered into a First Forbearance Agreement under which Nicola advanced some funds for repairs, and Mr. Salinger irrevocably committed to foreclosure upon expiry in May 2023. After that agreement lapsed, Nicola obtained an Order Nisi of Foreclosure on October 31, 2023, with the redemption period shortened to three months, expiring January 31, 2024. The mortgage debt was set at $467,787.60 plus interest at 8.54% per annum (or $100.41 per day), together with costs and additional expenses reasonably incurred to protect the petitioner's security interest. Nicola was given conduct of sale effective February 1, 2024, and no payments had been received since the Order Nisi was granted.
Mr. Salinger's application to extend the redemption period was dismissed by Justice Thomas on January 29, 2024. Shortly afterward, on January 31, 2024, Mr. Salinger obtained an offer to purchase the property with a closing date in May 2024, leading to a Second Forbearance Agreement in March 2024 to facilitate that sale. The sale ultimately did not complete. Nicola then listed the property itself and secured an offer on October 15, 2024 (the "October 2024 Sale"). Mr. Salinger opposed court approval of that sale on the basis that the price was improvident and also sought to cross-examine Nicola's affiants, but his application was dismissed on January 17, 2025 by Justice Hori. Justice Harvey subsequently approved the October 2024 Sale on February 11, 2025. Mr. Salinger appealed both decisions and obtained a stay of closing, while Nicola filed for a final order of foreclosure.

The April 2025 Forbearance Agreement and its key clause
The competing proceedings were resolved through a third forbearance agreement on April 3, 2025 (the "April 2025 Forbearance Agreement"). Under its terms, the second mortgagee, 0966040 B.C. Ltd., was given conduct of sale until October 2025, the pending appeals were abandoned, and Nicola's application for a final order of foreclosure was adjourned generally. The critical contractual provision was Clause 4(d), which stated that if the agreement terminated for any reason other than Nicola's inability to obtain a release from the buyer under the October 2024 Agreement, then upon Nicola re-setting its application for a final order, all parties "irrevocably agree and consent to the relief sought by Nicola in the Final Order Application," and Mr. Salinger irrevocably consented to an immediate writ of possession if he failed to vacate. Neither Mr. Salinger nor 0966040 B.C. Ltd. was able to sell the property during the forbearance period, and the agreement expired.

Procedural issues and the local venue challenge
After the April 2025 Forbearance Agreement expired, Nicola sought to have its application heard. Several adjournments followed, and in December 2025, Associate Judge Keim — lacking sufficient time to hear the application in Terrace — ordered that it could be set for half a day in any registry, with all parties having the right to attend by MS Teams. Mr. Salinger challenged this order, arguing the "local venue rule" under s. 21(2) of the Law and Equity Act required the matter to be heard in the Terrace Registry. Justice Morley rejected this argument, finding the local venue rule is a default rule that can be displaced at the court's discretion in the interests of justice. The associate judge had given Mr. Salinger notice and an opportunity to be heard before making the order, which was a valid condition imposed to mitigate the prejudice of yet another adjournment.

Mr. Salinger's application for a stay
Mr. Salinger applied to stay the foreclosure proceeding pending the determination of several matters: a Notice of Civil Claim he filed against Nicola (the "22685 Action"), taxation of Nicola's legal fees, costs of earlier hearings, and the validity of "mortgage impairment insurance" claimed by Nicola. In the 22685 Action, Mr. Salinger alleged that the sole local appraiser in Terrace, Mr. Cullis, had refused to appraise the property due to alleged collusion with Nicola, and that this refusal prevented him from obtaining refinancing or completing sales. Justice Morley applied the RJR-MacDonald three-part test for interlocutory relief — preliminary assessment of the merits, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience — with a modification requiring the higher prima facie standard, since a stay of foreclosure would effectively resolve the dispute for years. The court found Mr. Salinger had not established a prima facie case: the collusion allegation rested on hearsay from an unnamed lawyer, declining work due to a conflict of interest is not inherently unlawful, and there was no evidence that all lenders required an appraisal specifically from Mr. Cullis. Even if irreparable harm could be shown, the balance of convenience did not favour a multi-year stay controlled by Mr. Salinger's litigation pace. The issues relating to legal fees, costs, and mortgage impairment insurance could all be addressed within the foreclosure proceeding itself and were not relevant to whether a final order should be granted.

Estoppel and the enforceability of the forbearance agreement
The court then considered whether Clause 4(d) of the April 2025 Forbearance Agreement estopped Mr. Salinger from opposing the final order. Justice Morley acknowledged that while a forbearance agreement cannot act as an absolute "veto" on the court's equitable discretion, citing Beem Credit Union v. Global City Properties (Aloha Estates) Ltd., 2026 BCSC 215, such agreements must be given significant weight. The court found the April 2025 Forbearance Agreement was enforceable: it was entered into after extended proceedings, Mr. Salinger acknowledged receiving independent legal advice, Nicola gave up an existing court-approved sale, and the cumulative redemption period far exceeded the statutory default of six months under s. 16(2) of the Law and Equity Act. Mr. Salinger was therefore estopped from requesting a further extension.

Reasonable prospect of payment
Even setting aside the estoppel issue, the court found that Mr. Salinger had not met the test for extending the redemption period. There was no firm commitment from any lender to refinance the property up to the amount of the uncontested indebtedness. Although Mr. Salinger attributed his difficulties to the inability to obtain a local appraisal, the evidence did not support this as the reason, and an appraisal had since been obtained without resulting in a firm financing commitment. The court recognized Mr. Salinger had faced personal challenges, including that in 2021 his mother passed away, but found that after more than three years of foreclosure proceedings, none of these challenges justified a further extension.

Ruling and outcome
Justice Morley dismissed Mr. Salinger's application for a stay and granted a final order of foreclosure in favour of Nicola Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Salinger was ordered to deliver up vacant possession of the property within 30 days. Pursuant to s. 32 of the Property Law Act, no order as to costs was made. While no specific monetary amount was awarded beyond the foreclosure itself — through which Nicola obtains title to the property — the underlying mortgage indebtedness at the time of the Order Nisi was $467,787.60 plus daily interest of $100.41, and the exact total accrued by the date of the final order was not specified in the judgment.