The Home She Never Owned—But Lived In

In 2010, Sarah moved into a home in St. Albert, Alberta. She was going through a divorce and her then husband was determined she not be able to buy the home she had raised their children in.  Sarah found a perfect home for a fresh start.  At the suggestion of CIBC who held the mortgage on the property, the title was put in her parents' names—her mother Mary Anne and her father—because the division of property hadn't yet occurred.

In 2019, Sarah was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. A family war over inheritance began - Sarah's daughter wanted everything Sarah had.  Sarah's daughter turned everyone's lives upside down.  Sara's parents' marriage collapsed. Her father emptied her parents' joint bank accounts leaving Mary Anne with nothing and refused to pay the mortgage—and told CIBC to foreclose.  Sarah's daughter evicted Mary Anne from her own home forcing her to live with Sarah.

The Appeal That Was Crushed

On November 12, 2021, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the judicial sale of the property to the Buyers. The order gave Sarah until January 28, 2022 to vacate, with the sale closing on January 31, 2022.

Sarah's mother appealed the foreclosure sale. Based on case law, they expected to succeed.

While waiting online in WebEx for the appeal hearing, her mother's lawyer received an email from an elder abuse coordinator—directed there by CIBC's legal counsel. Two community members (who would later be identified as the foreclosure listing agent and his common-law partner who represented the buyers of the property), made allegations Sarah was "extremely verbally abusive" to her mother  and that her mother appeared afraid of her.  The e-mail went on to suggest her mother "shouldn't be allowed to live with" Sarah because of abuse, coercion, and manipulation.

The allegations came from people with direct financial stakes in ensuring the sale proceeded - raising serious questions about their motivations and the timing of their intervention.

The lawyer's demeanor changed instantly. He suggested they discontinue the appeal.

On January 24, 2022, terrified of being sued and shaken by the abuse allegations, Sarah's mother discontinued the appeal.

The Court-Ordered Sale

On November 12, 2021, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the judicial sale of the property to the Buyers. The order gave Sarah until January 28, 2022 to vacate, with the sale closing on January 31, 2022. Sarah now had the rest of Monday, all of Tuesday, all of Wednesday, and Thursday morning to find a place to live, get boxes, and pack a 4-bedroom, 2,200 square foot home. 

She arranged for professional movers—five full-time movers with two trucks, plus two part-time movers with another truck—scheduled for Thursday, January 27, the day she and her mother had to be out of the home by.  She had Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday to find a place to live, to get boxes, and pack up a 4-bedroom, 2,200 square foot home by herself. The movers from Highland Moving and Storage - a reputable company - decided 5 pm was their quitting time.  If items hadn't been moved, that wasn't their problem.

A significant amount of personal property was left behind: furniture, personal belongings, exercise equippment and irreplaceable items.  

Sarah contacted the property management company about having left so much property behind - the property management company hired by CIBC told Sarah not to worry: "You won't lose any of your property."  Sarah was relieved.

CIBC Maintained Control—And Let Sarah Back In

CIBC's control of the property extended until noon on January 31, 2022—the day of closing.

CIBC's property management company took photographs documenting the abandoned goods the day Sara and her mother vacated the home. They allowed Sarah back into the property on January 31 to retrieve more items.

Sarah was inside the home retrieving her belongings when the Buyers took possession at noon.

The Buyers knew this. They knew CIBC had allowed Sarah back in. They knew she was actively retrieving her property.

What Sarah didn't realize until days later was that she left behind the ashes of three beloved pets, her mother's jewelry including engagement and wedding ring that her mother stored in a suitcase in the basement, and a pink gold Bulova watch her grandmother selected from a tray of gold watches brought to the hospital by her grandfather - to celebrate the birth of their first child - Sarah's mother.  It was the only item Mary Anne had that belonged to her mother - and now it was gone.

February 11: The Door Slammed Shut

Sarah had severe back pain - it took her a week and a half to recover from the toll moving took on her body before she could move enough to return to the property she once called home.  On February 11, 2022—11 days after closing—Sarah returned to retrieve the rest of her belongings. She brought documentation showing that under Alberta Rules of Court, Rule 9.28, abandoned goods must be retained for 30 days and the owner must be allowed to retrieve them.  She explained the legal requirement.

The door was closed in her face.

Shortly after, a dumpster was delivered to the property. Some of Sarah's belongings were thrown inside. Some were sold on Facebook Marketplace. The rest were donated to Value Village and distributed among all Edmonton locations.

Gone forever:

• The ashes of her dog Sadie and her cats Pete and Mika
• Her mother's wedding and engagement rings
• Her grandmother's gold Bulova watch
• Her wedding dress
• Business equipment essential to the office she ran prior to her cancer diagnosis

The Business That Collapsed

Sarah's pre-cancer diagnosis business relied on the equipment the Buyers disposed of. Without computers, printers, filing cabinets, and office supplies, she couldn't function as a company with many working for her - she was now a single-person business.

Her income told the story:

• 2020: $155,000
• 2022: $32,270
• 2023: $21,160

She lost more than property. She lost her livelihood.

Sarah Sued for Conversion

In December 2022, Sarah filed a civil claim in Provincial Court seeking return of her property or damages for its loss.

Her case was straightforward:

1. The Buyers intentionally disposed of property belonging to Sarah
2. They sold items for their own benefit
3. They refused Sarah access to retrieve her belongings
4. This constituted conversion—wrongful interference with goods belonging to another

The Buyers admitted disposing of and selling Sarah's property.

The Buyers also admitted to returning property that Sarah's father said belonged to him.  The Buyers had inserted themselves into the family war taking sides without knowing the real story.

What Alberta Rule of Court Rule 9.28 Says

Rule 9.28 governs "abandoned goods" left after court-ordered possession. It's designed to protect property rights while giving judgment holders a process to deal with left-behind items.

The rule requires specific steps:

If goods are worth less than $2,000:

• The judgment holder must form a reasonable belief about the value
• Then they may dispose of them immediately (Rule 9.28(2))

If goods are worth $2,000 or more:

• The judgment holder must arrange storage (Rule 9.28(4))
• Send written notice to the owner within 30 days (Rule 9.28(5))
• Wait 60 days
• Only then may they sell the goods (Rule 9.28(6))

Rule 9.28(7) is the critical provision: "If abandoned goods are disposed of or sold under this rule, the title to the goods vests in the person disposing of or purchasing them and is extinguished in all other persons."

Ownership is only extinguished if the goods are "disposed of or sold under this rule"—meaning following the procedures in Rule 9.28.

What CIBC Actually Did

CIBC did not:

• Dispose of the goods under Rule 9.28(2)
• Sell them immediately under Rule 9.28(3)
• Arrange storage under Rule 9.28(4)
• Send written notice under Rule 9.28(5)
• Sell them after 60 days under Rule 9.28(6)

CIBC did:

• Take photographs of the goods
• Allow Sarah back into the property to retrieve items
• Maintain control until noon on January 31, 2022
• Then transfer control to the Buyers

At 12:01 pm on January 31, the goods were simply still there. They had not been "disposed of or sold under this rule."

The Trial Court's Dangerous Reasoning

On January 7, 2025, the trial proceeded before a Provincial Court judge. Sarah testified about her property, its value, and her business losses. The Buyers admitted disposing of her belongings.

But then the Buyers' lawyer argued that CIBC had "disposed" of the goods by leaving them on the property when control transferred.

The trial judge agreed.

On April 22, 2025, the judge dismissed Sarah's claim, ruling:

• CIBC was the "judgment holder" under Rule 9.28
• CIBC "disposed" of the abandoned goods by leaving them on the property for the Buyers
• Rule 9.28(7) therefore extinguished Sarah's title and transferred it to the Buyers
• Sarah no longer had sufficient legal interest to sue for conversion

The problem: Rule 9.28 doesn't list "leaving goods where they are" as a disposal method.

The rule requires affirmative action: dispose, sell, store and notify, or arrange sale. Passive inaction—doing nothing and walking away—isn't disposal.

The Evidence That Was Excluded

Sarah tried to present crucial evidence at trial: CIBC's property management company told her she wouldn't lose her property.

The property management company was hired by CIBC to manage the premises and oversee retrieval of goods. They were CIBC's agent on site—taking photos, documenting items, allowing Sarah access.

The trial judge excluded this testimony as "hearsay."

But was it hearsay? The property management company was CIBC's agent. Their statements were made in the course of their duties on CIBC's behalf. Under agency law, an agent's statements made within the scope of their authority are admissible as the principal's own statements.

This excluded evidence directly contradicted the judge's finding that CIBC made a "discretionary decision to dispose" of the goods. CIBC's agent told Sarah the opposite.  CIBC was not present to testify on January 7, 2025.  No evidence of CIBC's intent was put before the Court. The Court of Appeal has been very clear that fidings of fact must be grounded in actual evidence, not judicial speculation.  

The entire legal decision came down to judicial assumptions about CIBC's intentions and mental state without any evidentiary foundation, while simultaneously excluding actual evidence (PCHS telling Sarah she wouldn't lose her property) that contradicted these assumptions.

The Appeal: The Error Gets Worse

Sarah appealed to the Court of King's Bench. In her written argument, Sarah argued:

1. Misinterpretation of Rule 9.28 - that CIBC disposed of goods by leaving them without evidence of their subjective belief or compliance with procedures
2. Contractual analysis failures - Schedule "A" explicitly disclaimed from having title to personal property
3. Conversion law errors - all elements were proven; liability should be assessed at time of the defendants' acts
4. Evidentiary errors - findings about CIBC's intentions without supporting evidence; improper exclusion of PCHS testimony
5. Failure to complete legal analysis - omitted the Unclaimed Personal Property and Vested Property Act; failed to analyze nemo dat quod non habet
6. Improper inferences contrary to evidence
7. Procedural fairness - denied when findings were made about CIBC without them being a party

On November 5, 2025, the appeal judge dismissed her appeal.

The judge wrote: "One way that [CIBC] might do so is to leave them in the property when it is sold and let the purchaser worry about them."

This reasoning is legally incorrect for four reasons:

1. It's Not in the Rule

Rule 9.28 provides specific disposal methods. Courts shouldn't invent new ones that appear nowhere in the statute.

2. It Defeats the Rule's Purpose

Rule 9.28 exists to:

• Protect property rights of former occupants
• Require judgment holders to make determinations about value
• Provide notice and opportunity to reclaim
• Create a clear, fair process

Allowing "disposal by doing nothing and walking away" defeats all of these purposes.

3. It Creates Absurd Results

Under this interpretation:

• A judgment holder can ignore all Rule 9.28 requirements
• Simply wait until their control expires
• Shrug and say "I disposed by leaving them there"
• The purchaser gets the goods free and clear
• The owner loses all rights without any procedural protections
• The owner, not being in possession of the property, cannot value the goods being left behind.  If for example, a diamond ring is left behind in a drawer, the diamond ring becomes the property of the buyers.  This is NOT what the Courts intended when Rule 9.28 was enacted.

4. It Conflicts with Rule 9.28(4)

Rule 9.28(4) says if you don't dispose under (2) or (3), you MUST arrange storage. If "leaving them" counted as disposal, this requirement would be meaningless.

The Dangerous Precedent

Both courts asked the wrong question.

They asked: "Did the Buyers have obligations under Rule 9.28?"

They should have asked: "Did the procedural requirements of Rule 9.28 actually occur such that Rule 9.28(7)'s extinguishment provision was triggered?"

The answer is clearly no.

The courts created a new, unwritten method of disposal—"disposal by expiration of time and transfer of control"—that appears nowhere in the statute and defeats its protective purposes.

This is dangerous for every homeowner who faces foreclosure in Alberta.

What Should Have Happened

For Rule 9.28(7) to extinguish Sarah's title, CIBC needed to actually follow Rule 9.28:

If goods worth less than $2,000:

• Form a reasonable belief about value
• Actually dispose (throw away, destroy, give away, etc.)

If goods worth $2,000 or more:

• Arrange storage
• Send written notice to the owner
• Wait 60 days
• Then sell

CIBC did none of these things.

CIBC's control expired at noon on January 31, 2022. At that moment, the goods were simply still there—neither disposed of nor sold under Rule 9.28.

Sarah retained title to her property.

When the Buyers came into possession of property belonging to another and disposed of it (especially after February 11 when Sarah returned and access was refused), that was conversion.

The Real-World Impact

Sarah lost:

• Irreplaceable personal items (pet ashes, family heirlooms)
• Essential business equipment
• Her income (dropping from $155,000 to $21,160)
• Years fighting a legal battle while representing herself
• Over $55,000 in documented property value

The Buyers:

• Purchased the home for $448,000
• Replaced carpet and painted
• Sold it privately for $560,000—a $112,000 profit in months
• Benefited from disposing of Sarah's property (sales on Facebook Marketplace)
• Faced no consequences

Why This Matters

This precedent means that in Alberta foreclosures:

• Judgment holders can ignore Rule 9.28 entirely
• Former occupants lose property rights without any procedural protections
• Purchasers can dispose of or sell property belonging to others with impunity
• The statutory scheme designed to protect property rights becomes meaningless

Doing nothing became "disposal." Passive inaction triggered a law designed to prevent exactly that.

The Fight Continues

Sarah is exploring judicial review—asking a higher court to examine whether the appeal decision was legally correct.

She's not asking for a gift. She's asking for what Rule 9.28 was designed to provide: proper process, fair notice, and protection of property rights.

After losing her home to her parents' foreclosure, after fighting cancer, after watching her business collapse, Sarah is still fighting for a principle that matters to every Albertan:

Your property rights shouldn't disappear because someone else did nothing.

When courts allow "disposal by doing nothing," they don't just rule against one person. They create precedent that undermines statutory protections for everyone.

Sarah is an integral part of the Alberta Foreclosure Relief Program and is why the program exists.