The applicants and respondents, involved in a joint venture for a condominium development, experienced an irrevocable breakdown in their relationship.
Both sides agreed the property should be sold but disagreed on the mechanism: the applicants sought the appointment of a receiver, while the respondents sought a signing officer with limited powers.
The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to conduct the sales process, concluding that a receivership would not stigmatize the property and that the receiver's powers could be appropriately tailored to consider existing offers.
