Digital Brain
digital brain
digital brain

July 20 Update: POLICY STATEMENT 17 – Extension of the Early Marketing Period in Response to COVID-19

July 21, 2020 Real Estate Law Bulletin 2 minute read

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on April 17, 2020, the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (the “OSRE”) announced the issuance of Policy Statement 17. This bulletin is an update to our previous bulletin on this topic, and details an amendment to Policy Statement 17 extending its effect until April 30, 2021.

Policy Statement 17 provides for a temporary extension of the early marketing period for developments marketed prior to obtaining a building permit and/or a satisfactory financing commitment.

The conditions under which a developer can market a development governed by the Real Estate Development Marketing Act prior to obtaining a building permit and/or a satisfactory financing commitment are set out in Policy Statement 5 and Policy Statement 6, respectively. Prior to the issuance of Policy Statement 17, a developer could market such a development for a period of 9 months prior to obtaining a building permit and/or a satisfactory financing commitment, as applicable. This 9-month timeline commences on the filing date of the initial disclosure statement. If a developer does not obtain and disclose the details of a building permit and/or a satisfactory financing commitment, as applicable, prior to the expiry of the 9-month timeline, the developer must cease marketing the development. To accommodate the unforeseen circumstances that have arisen due to COVID-19, the OSRE issued Policy Statement 17, which temporarily extends the 9-month period to 12 months.

The initial issuance of Policy Statement 17 applied to disclosure statements filed up until July 17, 2020. On July 15, 2020, the OSRE announced an amendment to Policy Statement 17, extending its effect to April 30, 2021. This means that a development marketed under a disclosure statement filed between April 17, 2020 and April 30, 2021 can be marketed for a 12-month period, provided the disclosure statement contains the applicable extended dates, pursuant to the amended Policy Statement 17.

It is important to note all other provisions of Policy Statement 5 and Policy Statement 6 remain unchanged. Accordingly, the rescission right that arises for a purchaser if a building permit and/or a satisfactory financing commitment, as applicable, is not obtained and disclosed within 12 months from the date of filing of the disclosure statement remains unchanged.

If you wish to obtain further particulars regarding early marketing periods or Policy Statement 17 and its proposed implications, we recommend seeking legal advice.

by Douglas Zorrilla and Ammen Bains (Articling Student)

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2020

Insights (5 Posts)

Featured Insight

Upfront Compensation for Segregated Funds: Is a Total Ban on the Horizon?

Insurance Regulators are exploring regulatory changes to Segregated Funds compensation arrangement on Insurers, Intermediaries and Consumers.

Read More
Sep 28, 2022
Featured Insight

Too Quick to (Summary) Judge: The Shortcomings of Summary Judgment in Patent Actions in Canada

The FCA addresses the shortcomings of summary judgment in patent cases, along with issues relating to "common general knowledge" and experimental testing.

Read More
Sep 27, 2022
Featured Insight

Land Use Planning and BOMA Standards: Issues and Possible Solutions

McMillan’s Commercial Real Estate and Litigation & Dispute Resolution teams are offering a conference on a variety of current issues relating to real estate development and BOMA Standards.

Details
October 27, 2022
Featured Insight

Just Say No (to Fixed-Term Employment Contracts): Court Awards 23 Months’ Pay to Former Business Owner

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued another warning to employers who enter into fixed-term contracts with their employees.

Read More
Sep 26, 2022
Featured Insight

Single Proceeding Model Trumps Contractual Rights – Arbitration Clause Held “Inoperative” in Insolvency Proceeding

Ontario's highest court has held that an arbitration clause may be unenforceable in an appropriate insolvency proceeding, introducing contractual uncertainty.

Read More
Sep 26, 2022