Dozens of Presale Buyers Are Fighting to Void Their Contracts: Inside the Eclipse Court Case and Why It Could Reshape Presale Law Across Canada

by Debbie Evans

Housing Policy & Market Analysis · July 2026 · Debbie Evans, REALTOR® RID CNE — westvanliving.ca

Dozens of Presale Buyers Are Fighting to Void Their Contracts

Inside the Eclipse Court Case — and Why It Could Reshape Presale Law Across Canada

More than three dozen presale purchasers at Burnaby's Eclipse condo tower have gone to BC Supreme Court asking a judge to void their purchase contracts entirely. Their argument centres on a roughly $12 million CRA judgment against the developer that they say should have been disclosed before — and in some cases while — they were signing. The court hasn't ruled yet, but however it lands, the decision is expected to matter well beyond this one building. Here's what's actually happened, what's being argued, and what presale buyers across BC should be watching.

I try to stay out of the habit of reacting to every headline that touches real estate. Most court cases involving developers settle quietly and never set a precedent worth your attention. This one is different, and it's worth understanding even if you have no connection to this specific building — because the legal question at its core touches every presale contract signed in this province.

What's confirmed, and what isn't

The CRA judgment, the insolvency timeline, the building permit suspension, and the court applications themselves are documented in court filings and confirmed through CBC's reporting. Whether the developer's conduct meets the legal threshold to void these contracts has not yet been decided by the court. This post describes the claims made by both sides — it does not draw a conclusion about wrongdoing ahead of a ruling.

The Project

Eclipse is a 34-storey tower in Burnaby with somewhere between 329 and 335 units, developed by Thind Properties. Roughly 224 to 232 of those units were sold on presale contracts. Eclipse was one of several Thind projects pushed into insolvency proceedings by KingSett Mortgage Corporation, the senior lender, which was owed close to $225 million on this building alone as of late 2025 — part of roughly $500 million owed across Thind's broader BC portfolio, with interest reportedly accruing at close to $54,000 a day.

Thind entered creditor protection under the federal Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in January 2025, at which point the tower was reported to be about 95% complete. Warranty coverage had already been suspended in October 2024, and the City of Burnaby suspended the building permit the following month. Construction later resumed under a court-appointed monitor, KSV Restructuring Inc., and the building was deemed substantially complete by mid-March 2026, with an occupancy permit issued that April.

~$225M

Owed to senior lender on Eclipse alone, late 2025

~$12M

CRA judgment against the developer, obtained mid-2023

36+

Presale purchasers applying to void their contracts

What Buyers Are Alleging

Two coordinated groups of purchasers filed BC Supreme Court applications arguing the developer breached the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (REDMA) by failing to disclose material facts about its finances well before the insolvency became public. Specifically, the applications point to a CRA judgment of approximately $12 million obtained against the developer in mid-2023 — disclosed, buyers say, only much later, after several of them had already signed or continued signing contracts through late 2023 and into 2024.

REDMA requires developers to disclose known misrepresentations in their disclosure statements as soon as they become aware of them. The buyers' position is that the CRA debt, the eventual warranty suspension, and the building-permit freeze all qualify as facts they were entitled to know before committing their deposits.

One purchaser — a 30-year-old Burnaby barber who put down roughly $38,000 for a one-bedroom unit in 2023 — said in a court affidavit that knowing about the CRA judgment would have changed his decision to buy. His story has become a public face of the broader group, though the outcome for all affected buyers will turn on how the court rules on the underlying legal questions, not on any one person's circumstances.

Why the Monitor Disagrees

KSV Restructuring, acting as the court-appointed monitor, has opposed the buyers' applications. Its filings characterize the petitions as an attempt to work around the protections the CCAA is meant to provide a company under creditor protection — protections designed to give insolvent businesses room to restructure without a wave of individual lawsuits derailing the process.

KSV has also argued that letting buyers exit now — after most units were purchased at prices well above where the current market sits — would invite similar challenges from presale purchasers on other stalled projects, adding further uncertainty for lenders and creditors across the industry.

Two statutes, one building: BC's consumer-protection law says buyers deserve disclosure. Federal insolvency law says restructuring needs stability. The court has to decide which one governs when a presale project collapses mid-construction.

The Bigger Legal Question

This case turns on a conflict between two levels of law. REDMA is a provincial consumer-protection statute meant to give real estate buyers recourse when developers withhold material information. The CCAA is federal insolvency legislation governing how struggling companies restructure. A "notice of constitutional question" has been filed to address whether federal insolvency law overrides — or "paramounts" — the provincial disclosure obligations the buyers are relying on.

However the court rules, the decision is expected to set a precedent that reaches beyond Eclipse. It will shape what other BC presale buyers can expect if a developer turns out to have concealed financial trouble before a project fails, and what protections, if any, provincial consumer law can offer once a developer is under federal creditor protection.

Why this matters even if you never buy presale

Roughly one in five closings I see on the North Shore and in Vancouver over the past decade has involved a presale contract at some point in its history. Whatever this court decides about disclosure obligations during insolvency will influence how developers structure future disclosure statements, how lenders underwrite presale-financed projects, and how much protection buyers can genuinely count on when they put down a deposit years before a building exists.

What This Means, Depending on Where You Sit

If You Currently Hold a Presale Contract

Review your disclosure statement and any amendments for anything relating to the developer's financial position
Ask your lawyer or notary whether REDMA's disclosure obligations apply to facts that emerged after you signed, not just before
Keep records of every communication from the developer about project status, timelines, and financing
Understand that your recourse may depend heavily on the developer's insolvency status — that's precisely the question this case is testing

If You're Considering a Presale Purchase

Ask your REALTOR® to pull the developer's litigation and lien history, not just the marketing materials
A CRA judgment, builder lien, or foreclosure filing against a developer is a matter of public record — it's worth checking before you sign, not after
Understand who the senior lender is and how much leverage the project carries; heavily leveraged projects have less room to absorb cost overruns
Recognize that presale deposits sit behind secured lenders in an insolvency — your deposit protection is not the same as your mortgage lender's security position

A design and construction note

Buildings that go through insolvency and a change of general contractor mid-construction — as Eclipse did — warrant a closer look at completion, not just a legal one. If you're taking possession of a unit in a project that changed hands during construction, it's worth having your pre-possession inspection go beyond the standard deficiency list: ask specifically about which trades carried through the transition, whether finishing specifications changed from what was originally marketed, and whether warranty coverage was genuinely reinstated for the full building or only certain systems. This is exactly where my design and construction background changes what I'm looking for on a buyer's behalf versus a purely transactional walkthrough.

What We're Watching

Open Questions Ahead of the Ruling

Whether the court accepts the REDMA argument and voids the contracts — and if so, how deposits get returned and in what priority relative to secured creditors
How the ruling treats the paramountcy question, since that piece of the decision will matter well beyond this one building
Whether other stalled or insolvent BC presale projects see similar buyer applications follow

I'm not going to speculate on how the court will rule — that's not useful to you, and it's not my place. What I can tell you is that this case is a good prompt to look honestly at how much protection a presale contract actually offers versus how much protection buyers assume it offers. Those are not always the same thing, and the gap between them is exactly what this case is testing.

We'll follow up once a decision is released. As always, I'm distinguishing what's confirmed in court filings from what remains contested, and I'll update this piece if new filings or a ruling change the picture.

Why This Matters Now

This case comes at a time when BC's presale market is already under pressure. Higher interest rates, construction cost inflation, slower sales, and tighter financing have made developers more vulnerable than they were just a few years ago. Most projects proceed without major issues, but buyers are asking more questions about developer financial strength than they did during the market boom. Regardless of how the court rules, this case is likely to reinforce the importance of thorough due diligence before signing a presale contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the court decided whether the Eclipse presale contracts will be voided?

No. As of this writing, the applications are before the BC Supreme Court and no ruling has been issued. This post describes the arguments made by both the purchasers and the developer's monitor — it does not predict or assume an outcome.

What is REDMA, and why does it matter here?

The Real Estate Development Marketing Act is BC's provincial consumer-protection statute governing presale disclosure. It requires developers to disclose known material facts, including misrepresentations, in their disclosure statements as they become aware of them. The buyers in this case argue the developer's CRA debt should have been disclosed under this obligation.

What does "paramountcy" mean in this context?

Paramountcy is a constitutional doctrine that determines which law governs when a valid provincial law and a valid federal law conflict. Here, the question is whether the federal Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act — which governs insolvency restructuring — overrides BC's provincial REDMA disclosure obligations once a developer is under creditor protection.

If a developer becomes insolvent, are presale deposits protected?

Deposit protection depends on how the contract and any trust or insurance arrangements were structured, and where deposits fall in the priority of claims during an insolvency. Presale buyers are generally not in the same secured position as a project's senior lender. This is a question worth raising with a real estate lawyer before signing any presale contract, particularly on a heavily leveraged project.

Does this case affect presale buyers outside of Burnaby?

Not directly — the ruling will apply to this case's specific facts. But because the decision addresses how REDMA disclosure obligations interact with federal insolvency law, it's expected to set a precedent that BC courts, developers, and lenders will reference in future presale disputes across the province, including in West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Vancouver, Squamish, and Whistler.

Bottom Line

This case is still developing, and the responsible thing to do is wait for the ruling rather than assume an outcome. What's already useful, regardless of how the court decides, is the reminder that a presale contract is a financial commitment years ahead of possession — and the due diligence buyers should undertake on a developer's financial position, litigation history and construction progress can be just as important as evaluating the home itself.

Debbie Evans is a REALTOR® and Registered Interior Designer with eXp Realty, operating across West Vancouver, the North Shore, and the Sea-to-Sky corridor. She holds the RID and CNE designations and has nearly 40 years of combined real estate and design experience. For a consultation, visit westvanliving.ca.

Sources
CBC News — reporting by Jason Proctor, drawing on BC Supreme Court filings and affidavits related to the Eclipse insolvency and presale purchaser applications, 2026

BC Supreme Court — filings and applications related to Thind Properties / Eclipse (Burnaby) CCAA proceedings and presale purchaser petitions

This piece will be updated as the court case develops and a ruling is released.