Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Todd Veri sought to have Moonraker Ventures Ltd.'s foreclosure proceedings declared null and void under s. 22 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act for failure to provide the required statutory notice.

• Whether Mr. Veri qualified as a "farmer" under the Act was contested, with the court applying a liberal interpretation and finding his cattle and cannabis operations constituted commercial farming.

• Moonraker argued that cannabis cultivation does not fall within the Act's definition of farming, but the court held that field-grown cannabis is plainly a "field-grown crop" requiring no specific legislative amendment.

• Insolvency was challenged by Moonraker, yet the court found Mr. Veri was insolvent and, alternatively, that insolvency is not a precondition for the s. 21 notice obligation to apply.

• The demand letter sent by Moonraker's solicitor omitted critical information found in the Minister's prescribed form, including the 15-business-day waiting period and Farm Debt Mediation Service contact details.

• Foreclosure proceedings, including the order nisi and all subsequent steps, were declared null and void ab initio, with costs awarded to Mr. Veri.

Background and the property at issue
Todd Veri owned a property of approximately 60 acres located at 5795 Kaslo South Road, Kaslo, British Columbia, which formed part of the Agricultural Land Reserve ("ALR"). He purchased the property in 2015, along with various farm machinery, two barns, and an extensive irrigation system, with the intention of building and running his own farm. Despite not having much prior farming experience, Mr. Veri hired an experienced employee to assist him and embarked on a range of agricultural activities, including purchasing 600 blueberry plants for a U-Pick business, harvesting fruit and nuts from existing trees, and preserving and selling approximately 600 lbs. of produce including blueberries, cherries, apples, plums and walnuts. He also cut and baled approximately 600 bales of hay, selling 300 and storing 300 in a barn in anticipation of acquiring livestock. By the end of 2015, he had purchased two Highland Cross cows and two heifers, with the intention of building a herd and selling meat. He was aware that Highland Cross cattle take approximately five to six years to reach slaughter maturity.

Farming operations over time
In 2016 and 2017, Mr. Veri continued to grow, harvest, preserve and sell fruit and nut crops, and attempted to grow additional crops including several acres of grain, with limited success. In or around 2018, he co-founded a cooperative cannabis business with approximately 120 other farmers, entrepreneurs and investors (the "Co-op"). In 2019, the Co-op obtained a licence from Health Canada to cultivate, propagate and harvest cannabis on the property and one other property. Mr. Veri continued to be involved in the Co-op for approximately five years while maintaining his other farming activities, in particular growing his cattle herd. By 2020, Mr. Veri had a herd of Highland Cross cows on the property, a British Columbia Slaughter Licence, and a Health Canada Standard Cultivation licence for four acres of outdoor cannabis. In or around 2021, he purchased seeds, planted and harvested his first full crop of cannabis, yielding about 80 kilograms, though he was unable to sell much of it. Also in 2021, he obtained a BC Farmgate Plus slaughter licence, permitting him to harvest and sell up to 25 cattle per year. Between 2021 and 2022, he started to sell steers that were ready for slaughter, harvesting approximately three steers per year. The Co-op became insolvent in 2022 and its cannabis licence was cancelled, but Mr. Veri re-licensed the site in the name of his company, Cedar Bug Farm Ltd., in or around late 2023.

The mortgage and foreclosure proceedings
Moonraker Ventures Ltd. held a mortgage charging the property, granted in early January 2022 with a principal amount of $300,000 and a one-year maturation period. When the mortgage matured in January 2023, Moonraker declined to renew it, and the entire amount became due and owing. Mr. Veri was unable to pay the full amount. On March 27, 2023, Moonraker issued a demand letter through its solicitor, Ian Fleming, requiring payment of $305,820.69. The letter included a reference to Mr. Veri's right to make an application under s. 5 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act. Mr. Veri received the letter on or around April 26, 2023. His uncontradicted evidence, which the court accepted, was that the envelope containing the demand letter did not contain any other documents. On September 8, 2023, Moonraker filed its petition seeking, among other things, an order nisi for the sale of the property. On or about September 22, 2023, Mr. Veri was personally served with a letter enclosing the petition and supporting affidavit material, along with a nine-page extract from the Act containing ss. 1–14, notably omitting ss. 21 and 22. The petition came before Associate Judge Keim on March 18, 2024, at which time the court granted an order nisi of foreclosure with a six-month redemption period. Moonraker obtained a residential appraisal of the property in August 2024, valuing it at $675,000 as of August 12, 2024. Mr. Veri disputed this appraisal, which disregarded the farming use of the property and its existing agricultural infrastructure. On November 18, 2024, Justice Smith granted Moonraker an order for conduct of sale, and the property was listed consistent with the residential appraisal. On or about August 1, 2025, Moonraker accepted an offer to purchase the property for $610,000. Moonraker applied for an order approving the sale, but that application was held in abeyance by consent pending the court's decision on the present application.

Mr. Veri's application under the Act
On or about October 7, 2025, Mr. Veri applied under s. 5(1)(a) of the Act for a stay, a review of his financial affairs, and creditor mediation. A 30-day stay was granted by an administrator on October 9, 2025. Moonraker appealed to the Farm Debt Mediation Service, challenging Mr. Veri's eligibility and arguing he was not a farmer. On October 24, 2026, the Farm Debt Mediation Appeal Board dismissed Moonraker's appeal, finding that Mr. Veri is a farmer within the meaning of the Act. The parties attended an unsuccessful mediation in November 2025.

The statutory framework under the Farm Debt Mediation Act
The Farm Debt Mediation Act is remedial legislation intended to provide mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors. Section 2 defines a "farmer" as any person, cooperative, partnership or other association of persons that is engaged in farming for commercial purposes and that meets any prescribed criteria. "Farming" is defined in s. 2 to include the production of field-grown crops, cultivated and uncultivated, and horticultural crops; the raising of livestock, poultry and fur-bearing animals; and the production of eggs, milk, honey, maple syrup, tobacco, fibre, wood from woodlots and fodder crops. Section 21 requires a secured creditor intending to enforce any remedy against a farmer's property or to commence proceedings for the recovery of a debt to give the farmer written notice in the form established by the Minister at least 15 business days before taking action. The notice must advise the farmer of the right to make an application under s. 5 for a stay of proceedings, a review of the farmer's financial affairs, and creditor mediation. Section 22(1) provides that any act done by a creditor in contravention of s. 21 is null and void. Section 6 limits eligibility to apply under s. 5 to farmers who are insolvent.

Whether Mr. Veri was a farmer
The court found that Mr. Veri is a farmer within the meaning of the Act. Applying the liberal and purposive interpretation mandated by the statute's remedial nature, the court noted that Mr. Veri had, for some years, used a considerable part of the property for various farming purposes. He had little financial success to date, due to inexperience, adverse market conditions, crop failures, and the time it takes to raise Highland Cross cattle to maturity for slaughter. Drawing on precedent in Community Futures Development Corp. v. Litzenberger (2006 BCSC 856), Antrim Balanced Mortgage Fund Ltd. v. Pastula (2015 BCSC 1061), and Harding v. 0780194 B.C. Ltd. (2010 BCSC 5), the court emphasized that the Act does not require farmers to be successful farmers—what it requires is that they be farming for commercial purposes. The court also held that a person who, faced with foreclosure proceedings, scales back their farming activities does not thereby cease to be a farmer for the purposes of the Act. Moonraker's argument that cannabis farming falls outside the Act was rejected. The court held that farming is defined in s. 1 to include the production of field-grown crops, cultivated and uncultivated, and horticultural crops, and that field-grown cannabis is by any reasonable definition a field-grown crop. There was no need for Parliament to amend the Act to specifically include cannabis. The court further held that the fact that Mr. Veri engaged in some farming activities personally and some through his company, Cedar Bug Farm Ltd., did not mean he was not a farmer.

Whether insolvency was established
The court found that Mr. Veri was insolvent within the meaning of s. 6 of the Act, given his inability to pay the mortgage when Moonraker refused to renew it, his inability to obtain financing to refinance the property, his statement that he had no income, and the fact that all of his equity was tied up in the property. In the alternative, the court adopted the reasoning of Johnston J. in Pastula, holding that insolvency under s. 6 is a precondition only for applying for a stay under s. 5, not for triggering the creditor's notice obligation under s. 21. Whether or not a farmer is insolvent, a creditor must still comply with the notice requirements, and failure to do so renders the proceedings a nullity.

Whether proper notice was given
The court found that Moonraker did not provide notice as required under the Act. The Minister had not prescribed a form by regulation, but a form entitled "Notice of Intent By Secured Creditor" is available on Agriculture Canada's website. Neither this form nor an online tool available for creditors was provided to Mr. Veri by Moonraker at any time. The demand letter omitted important information found in the form, specifically: the requirement that a secured creditor must wait 15 business days after the notice has been deemed served before beginning to realize on their security; the farmer's right to apply for mediation and a stay of proceedings at any time by making an application to the Farm Debt Mediation Service; the description of qualified farm financial counsellors available through the Service; and the Farm Debt Mediation Service's contact information. The court interpreted the notice requirement purposively and found that the information provided in the demand letter was not substantively sufficient to put Mr. Veri on notice of his rights under the Act and the steps he could take to enforce them. The later provision of part of the Act in the package serving the petition was also not sufficient to comply with the notice requirement, as it arrived too late and most notably omitted ss. 21 and 22 of the Act.

Ruling and outcome
The court declared the petition proceeding null and void pursuant to s. 22(1) of the Farm Debt Mediation Act. Justice Lyster held that this result is mandatory under the language of the statute, and the court has no discretion to order some different remedy. The court rejected Moonraker's reliance on Island Savings Credit Union v. Brunner (2015 BCCA 449), distinguishing that case on the basis that s. 21 of the Law and Equity Act expressly confers statutory discretion on the court, whereas s. 22 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act does not. The court also rejected Moonraker's argument that Mr. Veri was precluded from making this application because he had not pleaded the defence, reasoning that the petition itself is null and void, meaning that in law Mr. Veri had nothing to respond to. The court noted it was unaware of any impediment to Moonraker commencing new proceedings in compliance with the Act. Mr. Veri, the successful party, was entitled to his costs of the application and the proceeding throughout; however, the exact monetary amount of those costs was not determined in the decision.