Jerry Brar Mortgages Inc. v Schuetz
Silke Petra Schuetz
Law Firm / Organization
Reedman Law
Lawyer(s)

Cody Reedman

John Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Tenant or Occupants
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Jerry Brar Mortgages Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Gobind Finance Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Balbir Kaur Sangha
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Manjit Singh Parhar
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Jaswinder Kaur Parhar
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Amarjit Singh Chahal
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Amerdeep Singh Chahal
Law Firm / Organization
Richards & Richards Law
Lawyer(s)

George H. Richards

Joerg Schuetz
Law Firm / Organization
Reedman Law
Lawyer(s)

Cody Reedman

1352001 B.C. LTD.
Law Firm / Organization
John Randall Law
Lawyer(s)

John L. Randall

Background:
Joerg Schuetz and Silke Petra Schuetz sought to set aside foreclosure orders nisi on their Langley, B.C. property, arguing they did not understand the hearings’ purpose. They alleged Jerry Brar Mortgages Inc. and its principal, Jerry Brar, conspired to pressure them into unfavorable mortgage agreements. The mortgages included a first mortgage of $4 million at 12% interest and a second mortgage of $3 million at 18% interest, later increasing under revised terms.

Legal Issues:
The applicants alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by Jerry Brar and associated lenders. They sought relief under Rule 22-1(3) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, claiming their non-attendance at the hearings was due to a misunderstanding.

Court's Analysis:
The court found a potential defense regarding the second mortgage but not the first. However, it ruled that the Schuetzes and their prior counsel at Clark Wilson LLP willfully chose not to attend the hearings, as they had already secured a six-month redemption period. Therefore, Rule 22-1(3) did not apply.

Conclusion & Costs:
The court dismissed the applications to set aside the foreclosure orders. It awarded costs in favor of Jerry Brar Mortgages Inc., Gobind Finance Ltd., Balbir Kaur Sangha, Manjit Singh Parhar, Jaswinder Kaur Parhar, Amarjit Singh Chahal, Amerdeep Singh Chahal, and 1352001 B.C. Ltd. The specific cost amount was not stated in the judgment.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
H250146
Real estate
Petitioner