


July 20 Update: POLICY STATEMENT 17 – Extension of the Early Marketing Period in Response to COVID-19
July 20 Update: POLICY STATEMENT 17 – Extension of the Early Marketing Period in Response to COVID-19
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)View More
Automotive Webinar Series | Part III: Where Rubber Meets the Road: Automotive Litigation Update
At this session, our panel of experts will provide a panoramic view of the evolution of automotive class actions across Canada, a review of best practices for managing disputes with distributors and franchisees, and
insights into litigation and disclosure obligations arising from automotive industry labour issues.
Automotive Webinar Series | Part II: Looking towards the Future: Automotive Legislation Updates
Our panel of professionals will highlight important changes impacting the automotive industry in Canada’s ever-evolving regulatory landscape including updates to cross-border sales legislation, advertising obligations arising from drip pricing provisions under the Competition Act and understanding Transport Canada's lates enforcement tool: administrative monetary penalties.
Nothing Casual about it: Hotel Faces Employees’ Class Action over Employment Benefit Changes
Hotel faces employees' class action over employment benefit changes.
“Mend your speech a little, lest it may mar your fortunes”: Are Employee Defamation Cases A Fool’s Errand?
This bulletin discusses the recent decision in Williams v. Vac Developments Limited regarding gag defamation proceedings commenced by employers.
Overholding in Commercial Leasing
The concept of overholding is often misunderstood and deserves more attention in commercial leases, given the significant consequences for landlords and tenants.
Get updates delivered right to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.