AMLC Legal Insights - Protecting Pre-Sale Deposits: BC Court Rules on Late Disclosure Amendments

By Alina Chekh

A 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ye v. Vesta Properties (Latimer) Ltd., 2025 BCSC 773, demonstrates how pre-sale purchasers can assert their rights when developers fail to provide timely disclosure. The Court held that purchasers were entitled to rescind their contracts and recover their deposits after the developer failed to promptly notify them of a one-year acceleration in the estimated completion date.

The decision highlights the legal consequences that can arise when developers do not provide timely updates to disclosure statements under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (“REDMA”).

Background​

​In March 2022, the purchasers entered into contracts to buy six pre-sale strata units in a multi-phased development project in Langley, British Columbia.

The dispute arose when the developer accelerated the estimated completion window by one year. On February 29, 2024, the developer filed an amendment with the Superintendent revising the completion window from October–December 2025 to October–December 2024. However, the amendment was not delivered to the purchasers until August 28, 2024, just over a month before the revised completion window began. As a result, the purchasers had limited time to prepare for early possession and the associated strata fees and carrying costs.

The purchasers commenced an action in October 2024. The developer subsequently issued notices to complete and alleged default after the purchasers refused to close.

​Decision

The Court held that the developer breached section 16 of the REDMA by failing to provide timely notice of a one-year acceleration in the estimated completion date.

The one-year acceleration was a material fact because it directly affected the purchasers’ financial planning, including their ability to prepare for strata fees, mortgage obligations and other carrying costs. The Court confirmed, citing McEachern v. 752265 B.C. Ltd., 2009 BCSC 1290, that significant changes to completion timelines may justify rescission.

Although the developer filed the amendment with the Superintendent within 30 days, it was not delivered to the purchasers for six months. During that period, the purchasers reasonably understood that completion would not occur until October 2025. When the developer later imposed a final completion date on short notice, it did not ameliorate the prejudice caused by the late notice but instead compounded it.

The Court concluded that:

1. The one-year acceleration rendered the original disclosure statement materially false or misleading, triggering the requirement for an amendment under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the REDMA; and

2. The developer’s failure to provide the amendment to purchasers within a reasonable time, in breach of section 16(1)(b), entitled the purchasers to rescind the contracts under section 23(1) of the REDMA.

Key Takeaways​ for Purchasers

This case illustrates how the REDMA protects purchasers who enter into pre-sale contracts:

· Developers must promptly deliver amendments to disclosure statements when material facts change;

· Significant changes to construction timelines may constitute a “material fact” under the REDMA; and

· When developers fail to comply with the REDMA disclosure obligations, purchasers may be entitled to rescind their contracts and recover their deposits.

If you are a pre-sale purchaser facing unexpected changes to completion dates, undisclosed amendments, or other potential REDMA violations, experienced litigation counsel can help you assess your rights and available remedies.. ​

Download a PDF copy of AMLC Legal Insights

AMLC Legal Insights are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or opinion.