The Appellant, a former occupant of a foreclosed property, left personal belongings in a house after a judicial sale process transferred ownership to the Respondents. The Respondents disposed of the remaining items, prompting the Appellant to file a claim alleging a breach of Rule 9.28 and the tort of conversion. The Appellant argued that Rule 9.28 creates a statutory scheme for Judgment holders to deal with abandoned goods left after Court ordered possession. While the Court agreed with this statement, it clarified that this was not the issue on appeal and that the issue was whether the obligation applies to the purchasers of property from a Judgment holder.

On Appeal, the Court found that Justice Putnam’s first instance decision correctly determined that Rule 9.28 imposed no obligation on the Respondents because they were not “judgment holder” as defined in the Rule. CIBC was the Judgment holder but was not a party to the action. The Court further found that Rule 9.28 clearly does not transfer the Judgment holder’s obligations under Rule 9.28, and agreed with Justice Putman, that no other Alberta legislation imposes any obligation on the Respondents, to which he found none.

The Court concluded that imposing liability on purchasers in foreclosure sales for property left behind by former occupants would be unreasonable and contrary to the legislative framework, and dismissed the Appeal.