The B.C. Court of Appeal has left an order in place allowing Altin Capital Limited to take over foreclosure proceedings against three Vancouver properties. The owner had received the original petition but never filed a response, so Altin was entitled to apply for the change without giving it formal notice.
In Main Street Arts 2 Development Limited Partnership v Altin Capital Limited, 2026 BCCA 443, the court acknowledged that the substitution order went too far. It covered a personal debt claim on which judgment had already been entered. The part of the proceeding concerning the properties themselves could continue, however, and the court found that the defect caused the owner no injustice.
How the lenders changed places
Main Street granted BCMP Mortgage Investment Corporation a $15.75 million first mortgage over three adjacent parcels at 1940 Main Street in Vancouver. Altin held a second mortgage. After Main Street defaulted, BCMP filed a foreclosure petition. Main Street’s lawyer attended the hearing at which BCMP obtained judgment on the debt, but Main Street filed no formal response to the petition.
In January 2022, BCMP assigned its interest in the first mortgage, its security and the foreclosure petition to Altin. The agreement called for Altin to notify the parties promptly and apply to take BCMP’s place. Altin applied in July 2025 and served the parties that had formally responded. It sent Main Street the order after obtaining it.
When Altin later sought a final foreclosure order, Main Street objected and applied to set aside the substitution. A chambers judge refused to reopen the substitution order and adjourned the application for final foreclosure. Main Street and the other appellants challenged the refusal.
Formal notice and the opportunity to be heard
Main Street argued that because the application had proceeded in its absence, Altin’s lawyer had a duty to tell the judge about arguments against granting the order. Justice Riley explained that the special disclosure duty on a one-sided application protects parties who lack an opportunity to be heard. Main Street had that opportunity when served with the petition. Filing a response would have entitled it to notice of later applications.
Riley nevertheless questioned why counsel had failed to give even informal notice to a lawyer who had attended an earlier hearing. It likely would have exposed the problem with the proposed order and avoided the ensuing delay and expense, he said.
The chambers judge had also taken too narrow a view of the court’s power to revisit an entered order. The appeal court confirmed that a superior court retains that power where allowing the order to stand would cause a miscarriage of justice. Here, the judgment on the personal debt was final, but a lender that acquired an interest in the mortgage could still take over the proceeding against the land. The appeal court dismissed the appeal without granting Altin’s application for final foreclosure.
Source: Read the decision on CanLII · Court of Appeal reasons.
