Source: 2019 BCCA 73 (CanLII) | CanLII

Any confusion about how to look at redemption period applications has been laid to rest by the BC Court of Appeal:

[26] The test for an extension of the redemption period has been long established and is set out in Canada Permanent Mortgage Corp. v. Dan-Al Construction Co., [1982] B.C.J. No. 2339:

[12] The Chambers Judge stated those tests accurately: that there must be a reasonable prospect of payment, and that the property must have sufficient value by way of security, for the amount outstanding.

[27] In looking to the prospect of repayment, the Court will look to the evidence and not rely upon speculation as to what may be possible.

[28] There is no dispute that there is sufficient value in the property to protect the first mortgagee, indeed the judge speaks of a potential windfall to the first mortgagee in the event the order absolute is granted. What has been in issue is the criterion that there be a reasonable prospect of payment in order to attract an extension of the redemption period. This is sometimes explained in terms of needing at least a plan, but it remains to the judge, considering all that is known to the court, to assess the viability of the proposal for payment advanced.