A Sunshine Coast senior has been granted an injunction to remove two residents of her Gibsons property so the construction of a home can be completed without interference.
Maria Sandberg Jones applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and was granted an injunction to remove the defendants and their belongings from her property, where they had been living in a camper. She alleged breach of contract, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, trespass and nuisance.
In 2020, Jones and local cafe owners Leslie Thomson and Andrew Press decided to buy property in Gibsons together and build a home where the three of them would live. Jones would have her own separate living space. While they agreed that Thomson and Press would own two-thirds of the property, Jones is the sole registered owner and contributed $3.47 million — approximately 97 per cent of the total cost — while Thomson and Press contributed approximately $115,000.
While litigation is ongoing, Justice Anita Chan’s Jan. 10 decision – which was released last week – stated, “There will be an injunction that the defendants be restrained from occupying or entering on the Property until the trial of this matter.” The justice also decided to cancel the defendant’s certification of pending litigation, filed against the title to the property in August 2023, upon the plaintiff posting a security of $115,000. This amount represents the defendants’ contribution and can be paid with the proceeds of the sale.
Jones was 74 years old, retired and living on a fixed income when the property was purchased in 2020, and wanted to “be able to age in place, nearby to her friends,” the court document states. While the three initially purchased the land together, with Jones owning a one-quarter interest and the defendants’ numbered property owning the rest, terms of the agreement weren’t written down.
Construction of the home did not proceed on schedule and is not complete. The parties had a budget of $800,000 for construction, which they learned was not realistic. A contractor provided an estimate of approximately $1.5 million to build to the drywall stage.
In fall 2021, Jones learned that Thomson and Press had not provided her with their complete debt and credit history, including “significant credit card debt and debts owing to Canada Revenue Agency, as well as debts related to the foreclosure of a property they previously owned in Gibsons,” and that they would not qualify for financing. Jones became the sole registered owner of the property and the sole borrower on a construction mortgage. Thomson and Press dispute that Jones was not aware of their foreclosed home.
The three verbally agreed Thomson and Press would contribute two-thirds of the total funds within 10 years and Jones would transfer two-thirds of the property to them, according to the decision. Thomson and Press dispute this, and depose that the agreement was that the plaintiff was fronting the cost of construction which would be reimbursed partially after completion of construction, while holding two-thirds of the property in a trust for the defendants.
To keep up with construction costs, Jones obtained additional financing from a private lender, cashed out $1.8 million of her investments, borrowed money from family and friends and withdrew money from her life insurance policy. She took out a mortgage on her personal property.
In October 2023, the defendants obtained an appraisal that valued the property at $2.85 million. Based on the evidence provided, the Justice determined that the plaintiff “has already suffered monetary damages that cannot be cured.”
The parties agreed that Thomson and Press could live in a camper and store belongings in several storage containers on the property. Jones deposed that cameras later set up on site were tampered with, and that Thomson prevented tradespeople from entering the property on numerous occasions. There is evidence of confrontations between Thomson and contractors, including a video recording where Thomson grabs the project manager’s phone and throws it to the ground. “The evidence is Mr. Thomson has been aggressive and antagonistic towards workers hired by the plaintiff, threatening to sue them… His behaviour has caused workers to leave the Property without performing the scheduled work,” the decision states.
In the court proceedings, the plaintiff said she is desperate to sell the property “to recover as much money as possible for me to have enough money to live on for the balance of my life,” and cited extreme stress and anxiety because of the situation and actions of the defendants. “I feel they have used me to allow them to build a home for themselves to live in that they would not otherwise have been able to afford,” she deposed.
Payments from Thomson and Press into a joint account for mortgage payments started in December 2021 before decreasing and stopping in January 2023, with one other payment made in May of that year. The “defendants argue that the November 2021 Agreement did not stipulate they had to pay $7,000 a month in Monthly Deposits; that they never agreed to repay the plaintiff in the time span of ten years; that the plaintiff agreed to front the construction costs, with some of that cost coming from the RBC Construction Loan; and that the plaintiff was aware all along of changes to the scope of the design of the residence.”
But Jones deposed that Thomson had revised the design of the home to include a lap pool, a helicopter landing pad and a rooftop terrace without her knowledge. Thomson deposed that these additions were on building plans Jones had seen. “In the end, it does not appear these additions were built,” the decision states. The building permit obtained also did not allow a kitchen to be built in Jones’s unit, meaning she would not have a fully separate living space.
Jones deposed that the defendants “breached every agreement” they made with her. She can no longer afford to live in the home once construction is complete, and she needs to sell it before she defaults on the construction loan and the property becomes foreclosed.
Even if a trust to hold two-thirds of the property for the defendants did exist, the justice found that “the evidence is strong that the defendants have breached fundamental terms of the November 2021 Agreement,” and that the plaintiff has a strong case that she did not agree to pay for everything upfront “so that the defendants can repay her at their leisure.” The justice also found that Jones has a strong prima facie case that she did not agree to hold a two-thirds beneficial interest in the property for the defendants.
Chan did not find the defendants’ arguments to be persuasive, her decision reads.
“In any event, the important point is there is undisputed evidence the defendants did not make the $7,000 monthly payments, even for one month,” the justice’s decision states.
The parties have 30 days to make different submissions on costs. Litigation is still ongoing.
