A decade-old debt and the assets a lender says a bankrupt hid in plain sight
A BC lender owed more than $16.5 million can now pursue assets it alleges a bankrupt debtor hid behind nominees, a court ruled.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has cleared TCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. to advance claims on behalf of the bankrupt estate of Gregory Rheinhard Rohland, in oral reasons released June 5, 2026 (TCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. v. Rohland, 2026 BCSC 1101). The ruling lets TCC add claims for fraudulent conveyance and money had and received just days before trial.
The decision turns on Section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which lets a creditor step into a trustee's shoes and pursue estate claims at its own expense when the trustee will not. For private lenders and anyone trying to recover money from an insolvent borrower, the case is a reminder that a discharged trustee does not necessarily close the door on estate claims.
The fight is a long one. TCC obtained a judgment against Rohland for almost $13 million in 2009, renewed in 2020 to more than $16.5 million. It remains almost entirely unpaid. Rohland assigned himself into bankruptcy in 2013 and is still undischarged. A March 2013 claims register listed 26 creditors with claims of roughly $40 million. His trustee was discharged in January 2015, and Rohland plans to apply for his own discharge soon - a move TCC says it will oppose.
TCC alleges Rohland kept doing business and holding assets through nominees who hold legal title for him, naming Inga Zane, Michael Rohland, Structured Annuity Solutions LLC and Oregon Management Inc. In a claim filed in November 2018, it alleges that Zane's property on Bowen Island, bought as a bare strata lot in 2016, was in fact purchased and improved by Zane and Rohland together, and that he holds a concealed beneficial interest used to dodge enforcement of TCC's judgment.
Zane disputes that account. She says the only money she received toward the purchase came from her mother, and that she paid for all the construction herself. She also argued TCC lacked standing to sue her - a point she first raised in an April 22, 2025 trial brief and revived in April 2026, prompting TCC's application.
Justice Coval granted the amendments. He found TCC's delay caused little real prejudice because the changes add no new material facts and do not alter the issues already in dispute. He noted TCC is a sophisticated commercial lender, well versed in bankruptcy law, that could have moved sooner, but concluded the overall interests of justice favored letting the claims proceed.
Whether those claims are barred by the limitation period was left open. Coval ruled that question is for the trial judge, noting it is at least arguable the claims survive under Section 22(5) of the Limitation Act given their tie to the existing case. The trial was set to begin about a week after the ruling.
