The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought a judicial sale of the defendant's property to satisfy a default judgment for unpaid credit card bills.
RBC moved for the appointment of a referee under Rule 54.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing this process would yield a better price than a sheriff's sale.
The defendant did not appear.
The court dismissed RBC's motion, finding that a judicial sale is a cumbersome and expensive process that should only be ordered in "special circumstances" where there is an impediment to a sheriff's sale and a clear benefit to an equitable receiver.
The court concluded that such special circumstances, particularly regarding PIPEDA issues, no longer exist following the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang.
The court emphasized that the Execution Act provides the primary statutory vehicle for enforcing writs of seizure and sale against real property, and the judicial sale process is an inefficient use of court resources given current backlogs.
No order as to costs was made.