B.C. Court of Appeal rejects Coquitlam couple’s bid to revive foreclosure fight

B.C.’s Court of Appeal has dismissed an attempt by two former Coquitlam homeowners to overturn a ruling that ended their challenge of a foreclosure and sale of their property.

In a unanimous Sept. 2 decision, a three-judge panel rejected the application by Richard Tennant and Mercedes Gloria Flores to vary an earlier order denying them the ability to appeal. 

The couple, who represented themselves, had argued they should have been granted more time to refinance their mortgage and that their property was undervalued.

Court records show the dispute began after Tennant and Flores defaulted on a mortgage that came due in February 2023. The lenders – Parminder Kaur Dhillon, Jasmine Dhillon, Najwa Salameh and 1217487 B.C. Ltd. – commenced foreclosure proceedings later that year.

In December 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court granted an order allowing the couple a six-month redemption period to pay back the debt. When they failed to do so, a judge ordered the sale of property in January 2025, granting vacant possession to the buyers effective Feb. 11.

Although Tennant and Flores did not oppose the sale order at the time, they received  a one-week extension to line up financing, but their efforts were unsuccessful. The new buyers then received title of the property. 

Appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed, and when the couple later sought to delay their eviction, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Karen Lamb refused, noting that: “a stay of the order for vacant possession would keep the purchasers out of property they own and would allow strangers to live in their house.” 

Bailiffs ultimately enforced the writ of possession in March 2025

Tennant and Flores then sought leave to appeal the Supreme Court rulings, claiming the judge should have considered a higher speculative value based on their redevelopment plans. 

But a chambers judge found their arguments lacked merit, concluding foreclosure law is well settled and their inability to secure financing was not grounds to stop enforcement.

On Sept. 2, Justice Sunni Horsman, writing for the Court of Appeal, upheld that conclusion.

“The chamber’s judge did not misconceive the facts, he stated the correct law, and he exercised his discretion in a principled manner,” she wrote.

The panel – which also included Justices David Harris and Heather MacNaughton – noted the applicants had attempted to broaden the dispute by raising complaints about mortgage terms, alleged negligence, city permits, and even a $100,000 bond. But the court ruled those issues were not at issue.

“While I appreciate that the applicants are genuinely upset about the circumstances they find themselves in, I see no basis upon which a division of this court could properly intervene,” Horsman said.