Bonnis Properties Ordered To Return $1.1M Deposit After Failed Sale In Vancouver

Vancouver’s real estate developer Bonnis Properties has been ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to return a deposit of $1.1 million, along with interest and damages, after a planned sale of three low-rise buildings on Main Street fell through. The deposit was part of a $22-million deal with Epix Developments, which had agreed to purchase the site at 728–796 Main Street in Chinatown. The collapse of the deal and the court’s decision highlight how even well-advanced property transfers can unravel under unexpected conditions.

The properties in question were tied to a proposed development originally envisioned by Bonnis in 2017. Their rezoning application aimed for a 15-storey mixed-use structure with strata condos, social housing, and commercial space. Midway through, the plan was scaled back to 11 storeys, and council approval came in February 2021. Despite the green light, Bonnis then pivoted to selling the project, marketing it off-market through a local real estate agent connected to the family.

A key player in brokering the sale was Sutton Group agent Adrian Gomes, who was related to the Bonnis family by marriage. He introduced the property to Victor Jang, and through him to Epix’s founder, Derek DiMartile. On May 15, 2021, property details were forwarded to Epix, and by early July, an offer was underway. The parties signed a purchase agreement on July 27, which included a $100,000 initial deposit and the larger $1 million top-up, with closing tied to a prior-to letter or waived conditions.

Epix believed the sale was secure because the rezoning was approved, assuming they could move quickly once they had the prior-to letter. However, Bonnis Properties misunderstood—or misrepresented—the status: although rezoning approval was granted, it had not been enacted, meaning more hurdles remained before full authority to build could be exercised. This confusion over the project's legal stage became central when Epix's conditions weren’t met and the deal unraveled.

The court’s ruling emphasized that Bonnis had a duty to be clear about the actual state of rezoning. Epix’s deposit was tied up under the belief that all key approvals were in place, enabling them to proceed without delay once the prior-to letter came through. When those expectations failed to materialize, the court found Bonnis responsible for returning the deposit, with added financial penalties to compensate Epix for the setback.

This decision serves as a reminder to developers and buyers that rezoning approval is not the final step, and details matter. As Vancouver continues to evolve and developers seek off-market opportunities, clarity in transactions will be essential. Buyers need to verify not just approvals but their current standing before committing large sums. And sellers must be transparent about any lingering conditions, lest they face legal and financial backlash.