Here at Realestatenerds.org, as is the case as most with our real estate colleagues, our focus is generally on the markets. But as a former managing broker and generally legally-minded agent, I think its just as important to have a pulse on important courtroom decisions shaping property values, development outcomes, ownership rights, and governance in British Columbia.
Last year I provided a similar update, including wading into last years’ indigenous land claim decision back in November on this youtube video. With this article, I’ll be looking at the new Dzawada’enuxw First Nation/Kingcome Inlet lawsuit, along with other current and understated court and regulator proceedings that fly under the radar. It is often these decision you never hear about that have a lot more effect on your daily life than more “controversial” decisions.
Of course, as always, I must provide the caveat that I am not a lawyer and the overviews below are intended primarily for surface informational and entertainment value only.
Expropriation Battle: What is a Parking Lot Worth?
In preparation for the incoming Langley-Surrey Skytrain Station, Langley City expropriated 40 surface parking stalls from the landlord of the Cascade’s Casino & Convention Centre back in February of 2025. Now, according to a January 2026 lawsuit, the landlord, Mesirow Realty Sale-Leaseback, doesn’t feel that the $1.79 million that the City paid is enough (plus the $15,392 for “temporary use” of other parking stalls).
“The loss of strata land for road dedication removes approximately 40 parking stalls situate immediately adjacent the frontage of the improvements on the strata lands and in an area of immediate and significant parking and transition activity providing services to the casino hotel and convention centre… The advance payment made under the Expropriation Act is not adequate compensation… [the owners] have suffered disturbance damage arising out of interference with the land.” -Statement of Claim
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes. The Casino is no longer the owner of the land and this lawsuit isn’t coming from Cascades Casino so this leads me to wonder if there was a tenancy renegotiation whereby the owner took a hit due to this – otherwise I wouldn’t know where the owner would be suffering disturbance damage.
But as an agent, I’m interested in the primary claim: is $1.79 million for 40 parking stalls not enough? I know that as property values rise, the cost of parking stalls also rises – it’s one of the reasons I believe that municipal-mandated parking stalls on properties are essentially a tax that increases the cost of homes and commercial property.
I know that it’s a common rule of thumb that a parking lot cost to developer is around $40-50,000, depending on the area (based on what two Langley developers have told me). Based on this, the 40 lot sale for $1.79 million would make sense – that’s $44,750 per lot.
Yet the buyer – the City – wasn’t purchasing any old parking lot land. They were purchasing land that could be developed next to a future Skytrain station.
The 40 stalls equated to 0.58 acres of the lot, or approximately 25,260 sqft. This works out to almost $3.1 million per acre.
Anyone who knows whats going on with market prices today might think that anything around $3 million per acre might be a great deal… until you realize that if this Station was not ON this land, but adjacent to it, it would be automatically approved for a minimum 20 storey tower – or 15 in the City due to the Aeronautics Act height restriction, plus exempt from parking restrictions due to proximity to, ironically, rapid transit. For comparison, a 1-acre lot in Willoughby sold last year, redevelopable for a 6-home subdivision, went for over $4.2 million.
Needless to say, this isn’t a clear cut issue. I’m just presenting the real estate perspective above, but with anything like this when we are dealing with values being increased due to government projects, it’s not always just about the real estate values. It’ll be interesting to see where this case goes.
Status: Claim filed, allegations unproven.
Can’t Fight the (Foreign) Tax Man
On January 14, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the claim of a couple who has been fighting the Foreign Buyer Tax that was implemented in… 2016.
To be fair, it wasn’t simply because they didn’t want to pay it. It was a long and complicated affair that involved a property that they had an agreement for purchase in place in 2014, but didn’t actually complete until 2017 – a year after the tax was in place.
Here’s the kicker: one of the buyers was a Canadian citizen, but her fiancé at the time was not. The fiancé put up 40% of the funds for the home purchase, but they listed his stake as 5%. This is what ended up hurting them more in the end. Court justice Margot Fleming wrote:
“I appreciate the appellant’s view imposing [the tax] on [the plaintiffs] 5 per cent interest… as profoundly unfair… However, had they registered their interests on title in accordance with their respective contributions, [the tax] would only have been payable on 40 per cent instead of 100 per cent of the market value of the property.”
So by trying to pay on 5% of the value ($3,558) instead of paying the 40% of the market value as they should have, now they’ll be paying on 100% of the value ($71,175).
Status: Court of Appeal rejected. Case closed.
Lawsuits ‘R’ Us: The Fallout of the Collapse of a Toy Empire
On January 13, 2026, our beloved Toys ‘R’ Us at Langley’s Willowbrook Shopping Centre – the last in the province – was closed suddenly due to “failure to pay rent, operating costs, property taxes, GST, and other amounts, totaling $98,337.59”. (Of course, I’m not sure what to believe since this is a 40,000 sq.ft. building and I have a hard time believe that $98k covers even one month’s rent). Either way, for those of us who follow corporate news, this isn’t a shocker. Toys ‘R’ Us went bankrupt in the USA back in 2017-18 and has been limping along in Canada (for those interested, here is a great mini-doc by Bright Sun Films on a more detailed history of the brand since bankruptcy). Where there was once 103 stores, 80 by the time Putman Investments tookover in 2021, but by 2025 there was 40. By January of this year, there were just 19 nationwide.
By early February, the lawsuits started piling up with the company owing over $120 million to various landlords. Current lawsuits amount fo about 1/4 of that, but more seem to be on the way. The company has been listing corporate properties and assets on auctions over the last few months.
The collapse of the Toys ‘R’ Us brand is probably one of the most easy to assess in the face of Amazon. The fact that the American stores fell prior to the pandemic was likely primarily because Amazon’s free and fast shipping was all over the USA. Although Amazon introducted free shipping in the early-mid 2000’s, it was in 2015 that Amazon’s free same-day delivery made it no reason to go to the toy giant. Meanwhile, Canadians adopted Amazon at a much later stage primarily because shipping was much slower and costs were much higher… until 2020. So it’s no surprise that the Canadian side of the retailer had a few more years before the effects of Amazon hit.
Status: Multiple lawsuits ongoing, allegations unproven.
Commercial Lease Blocked By “Unrealistic” Plan
Willowbrook Shopping Centre just can’t get a win. While the mall has been expanding with beautiful new amenities in advance of the future Willowbrook Skytrain Station, it has also lost two significant anchors in a relatively short period of time. In addition to the aforementioned toy giant, there is, of course, the ongoing saga of the former Hudson Bay Company location.
Back in May of 2025, it appeared that Chinese billionaire Ruby Liu was going to purchase the leases of 28 HBC locations. By June, Liu was in court seeking to reclaim the leases of 3 former HBC locations in the shopping centres she owns in BC, including Tsawwassen Mills. In July, HBC was pushing forward with the transactions, although there was mounting resistance by landlords for what appeared to be a business plan “predicated upon hope, optimism and not on experience”. One landlord stated ” Liu is “making this up as she goes” (more information on the 25 proposed lease takeovers here).
In August, a group of landlords – including Cadillac Fairview, Oxford Properties, Ivanhoe Cambridge, KingSett Capital Inc., Morguard Investments Ltd. and Primaris Real Estate Investment Trust (Willowbrook’s QuadReal was not mentioned in news reports) – filed suits to block Liu’s lease purchase based on their perspective that she had no credible business plan for the sites. In an affidavit, Rory MacLeod – Cadillac Fairview’s VP of operations – stated that Liu’s business is:
“…an empty shell without any guarantee of financial means beyond Ms. Liu’s bare assertion that she will keep it afloat… All of the indications are that (her company) will run out of money before the first store opens.”
In October 2025, a judge ruled that he would not force landlords to take on Liu as a tenant . Liu did win over the three leases in the shopping centres that she owns, but the other 25 would appear to be able to go back on the market at today’s lease rates rather than the previous rates that HBC had. Landlords would also be in a more enviable position to demise the anchor stores into smaller, more marketable spaces. Due to the court loss, HBC returned the $9.4 million deposit to Liu.
Status: Claimants (landlords) win case.
When Property Becomes the Penalty
Back in August, the VPD put out an alert for two men, including 43-year-old Omid Mashinchi, in relation to a large scale drug trafficking investigation going back to 2024. Along with four others, the two men were arrested, charged, and released pending the ongoing investigation. While the four others have been located and arrested, the two had not been located. The investigation had uncovered $16 million worth of drugs, plus multiple firearms and $500k worth of jewelry and cash.
Then, earlier this year, the BC government alleged, through a forfeiture suite, that the drug ring had used 12 properties worth $37 million to [orchestrate] a long-running, large-scale scheme to launder the proceeds of unlawful activity, primarily through the use of real property in the Metro Vancouver area.”
“In carrying out their money laundering scheme, the Mashinchi associates exercised control over dozens of real properties”
As news reports show, Mashinchi has long been connected to crime that used real estate as a conduit. Postmedia uncovered a money-laundering scheme using condo leases and in 2018, the Brothers Keepers gang leader was shot to death inside one of Mashinchi’s rental units.
“One tactic the Mashinchi associates employed to launder the proceeds of crime is through the rental and/or purported rental of some or all of the Mashinchi properties to third parties. These rentals were used as cover to explain cash deposits to banks and other financial entities.” –director of civil forfeiture
According to the court documents, Mashinchi and associates registered his Sky Residence corporation here in BC within a week of serving a 2018-2019 sentence in the USA.
All the property owners in the cases have denied the government’s allegations.
Status: Multiple open claims, allegations unproven.
When Due Diligence Fails
Not all consequential real estate cases involve large developments or criminal activity. Some of the most instructive decisions arise from ordinary residential transactions where assumptions go untested. The following case is a disciplinary decision by the British Columbia Financial Services Authority (BCFSA), the province’s real estate regulator.
A buyer purchased a property on Vancouver Island in 2018 – unaware that it sat on a protected archaeological site. The agent had learned that the property was protected by the Heritage Conservation Act prior to listing, confirmed it and allegedly verbally told prospective buyers about the fact. However, the listing agent did not disclose it on the listing and the seller expressly answered “No” on the Property Disclosure Statement when when asked about the Act and furthermore the seller had instructed their agent to not disclose the information and the latter complied.
The buyer found out less than a month after completion about the protection when he received a call from the Archaeological Branch after clearing some trees without ministerial permission. The restriction severely limited development potential and ultimately resulted in significant (~$100k+) financial loss (on a $300k property) upon a later sale.
Although BC’s real estate law is a caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) system, it isn’t without caveats. The regulator is unambiguous: archaeological significance is a material latent defect when it affects use and value. Even at a client’s instruction, a seller’s agent cannot withhold that information without breaching professional obligations. The listing agent was fined $66,500, including enforcement fees (the agent has since retired).
This case is a reminder that due diligence is not just a buyer responsibility. Disclosure obligations are strict, and courts will enforce them even years after the transaction closes.
Status: BCFSA Claimants win. Case closed.
Dzawada’enuxw First Nation Challenges Kingcome Inlet Land Claims
As previously mentioned, the recent Cowichan land claim decision has either opened up or at least given public attention to a host of other claims. One of the most recent filings involves the Dzawada’enuxw First Nation and five square kilometers, or about 1,235 acres, at the head of Kingcome Inlet. Let’s be clear though, unlike the Cowichan decision, this is an extremely isolated community.
Similar to the Cowichan case, this dispute has a lengthy history that predates the inception of the province and the legal quandary that was created in BC that isn’t found in other Canadian provinces.
The crux of this recent suit is that of a discrepancy between an 1879 reserve map drawn by Indian Reserve Commissioner Gilbert Malcolm Sproat and the later 1887 survey of said area. The suit says that the earlier map included the disputed lands, but the later map excluded the land. The suit goes on to say that government agents encouraged colonial settlers to acquire land in the area – some with direct familial relation to the agents. The suit shows a detailed history of allegedly illegal settlements, desecration and destruction of burial sites and over a century of disputes.
As I’ve said before, we have an opportunity right now to save taxpayers billions of dollars by coming to a reasonable, good faith evolution of the Land Title Act which only improves on our current Act. The greatest enemy of this evolution is not the land claims, but those who manufacture controversy based on fear, not facts.
Status: Claim filed. Allegations unproven.
Leave a Reply