Pacifica Mortgage Investment Corporation v. Laus Holdings Ltd.

Pacifica Mortgage Investment Corporation v. Laus Holdings Ltd.

The chambers judge correctly found on the evidence that Pacifica acted reasonably in declining further advances when satisfactory updated construction budgets were not provided, that the October 2008 agreement superseded earlier commitments and was complied with by Pacifica, and that there was no bona fide triable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCCA 95
Parties
Respondent (petitioner): Pacifica Mortgage Investment Corporation; Appellants (respondents): Laus Holdings Ltd.; Appellant (respondent): George Laus; Appellant (respondent): Frana Laus
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Foreclosure / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Chambers Order Granting Order Nisi of Foreclosure
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order nisi of foreclosure upheld
Legal Topics
Lender Discretion to Advance Funds, Foreclosure, Forbearance, Misrepresentation, Good Faith in Exercising Contractual Discretion, Appointment of Receiver, Merger and Supersession of Agreements
Source Language
english
Contract Property Equity Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Agency Lender Discretion to Advance Funds Foreclosure +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacifica Mortgage Investment Corporation

Respondent (petitioner)

Laus Holdings Ltd.

Appellants (respondents)

George Laus

Appellant (respondent)

Frana Laus

Appellant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Foreclosure / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Chambers Order Granting Order Nisi of Foreclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lender's contractual discretion to advance funds is unfettered or subject to good faith and objective reasonableness
  2. 2 Whether Pacifica breached any contractual or equitable duty by refusing to advance the final funds
  3. 3 Whether the October 2008 agreement superseded earlier commitments and is enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge correctly found on the evidence that Pacifica acted reasonably in declining further advances when satisfactory updated construction budgets were not provided, that the October 2008 agreement superseded earlier commitments and was complied with by Pacifica, and that there was no bona fide triable issue warranting referral to trial; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the order nisi of foreclosure is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order nisi of foreclosure upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi of foreclosure upheld