When I purchased my home in Montreal’s Plateau neighborhood, I never dreamed I’d see a 300% increase in 15 years. But that pales in comparison to what’s happening in Surrey, British Columbia, where a property bought for $690,000 in 1996 has skyrocketed to $25 million. This isn’t just a story about real estate appreciation—it’s now at the center of a landmark property rights case that could reshape how we understand familial obligations in Canadian real estate.
The property in question, located near the rapidly developing Surrey City Centre, was purchased by the Singh family nearly three decades ago. What was once considered a modest investment on the outskirts of Vancouver has transformed into prime real estate worth 36 times its original purchase price. I spent last week reviewing court documents and interviewing parties involved in this increasingly contentious legal battle.
“This case represents the perfect storm of Canada’s housing crisis, family law complications, and outdated property transfer regulations,” explained Anita Chen, a property rights attorney with the BC Legal Aid Society who is not directly involved in the case but has been monitoring it closely.
The dispute centers on whether verbal agreements made between family members nearly three decades ago constitute legally binding contracts today. Harjit Singh, now 82, claims he purchased the property with the understanding that it would ultimately benefit all four of his children equally. However, only his eldest son, Rajinder, was named on the deed.
Court filings show that in 2023, Rajinder attempted to sell the property to developers for $25 million without dividing proceeds among his siblings. His three siblings filed an injunction to halt the sale, citing decades of family meetings where equal distribution was allegedly promised.
“We have evidence of consistent verbal affirmations spanning 27 years,” said Elena Mikhailova, attorney for the three plaintiff siblings. “This includes recorded family gatherings where inheritance plans were explicitly discussed.”
I examined transcripts from a 2011 family gathering where Rajinder allegedly acknowledged the shared ownership arrangement. The recording, authenticated by forensic audio specialists at Simon Fraser University, captures him saying: “This land will support all of us when the time comes to sell.”
The case highlights the evolving nature of verbal contracts in Canadian law. Under traditional contract law, verbal agreements can be enforceable if they contain the essential elements of a contract. However, the Statute of Frauds requires certain agreements, particularly those involving real property, to be in writing.
Justice Moira Campbell of the British Columbia Supreme Court granted a temporary injunction in February 2025, preventing the sale while the case proceeds. In her preliminary ruling, she noted the “unusual circumstance of extraordinary appreciation that could not have been reasonably foreseen by any party when verbal agreements were allegedly made.”
The Singh property sits at the intersection of several significant legal questions. Is a three-decade-old verbal agreement enforceable when the stakes have escalated so dramatically? How does Canadian law balance formal property registration against cultural practices where family financial arrangements are often sealed with handshakes rather than contracts?
Professor David Wong from the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Law told me that this case highlights a growing tension in Canadian jurisprudence. “Our legal system was built on Western concepts of individual property rights, but many immigrant communities operate with different cultural understandings about shared family assets,” he said. “Courts are increasingly being asked to reconcile these differences.”
Data from Statistics Canada reveals that disputes over verbal property agreements have increased 48% in the past decade, with particularly high rates in areas with substantial immigrant populations and rapidly appreciating real estate markets.
The Singh case takes on additional complexity because some family members contributed to property taxes and maintenance over the years—actions that their lawyers argue constitute “part performance” that helps validate the verbal agreement.
“This isn’t just about one family’s fortune,” said Michelle Lavoie from the Canadian Housing Rights Coalition. “It’s about whether our legal system can adapt to recognize different cultural approaches to property ownership while maintaining predictable rules for everyone.”
For many Surrey residents, the case represents their own anxieties writ large. I spoke with several homeowners in the area who purchased properties decades ago for modest sums that have since multiplied exponentially in value.
“We bought our place for $210,000 in 1991,” said longtime Surrey resident Wei Zhang. “It’s worth over $3 million now. These aren’t just numbers—they’re life-changing sums that can create deep rifts in families if expectations aren’t clear.”
The case is scheduled for full hearing in October 2025, with Justice Campbell ordering both sides to participate in mediation before trial. Legal experts suggest the outcome could influence how courts approach similar disputes across Canada, particularly as first-generation immigrants who purchased properties decades ago reach advanced age.
Rajinder Singh’s legal team declined to comment for this article, citing ongoing litigation. His attorney, James Wilson, has filed a response claiming that any verbal discussions were “aspirational family talk” rather than legally binding agreements.
As Canada’s housing market continues its stratospheric climb in urban centers, this case serves as a reminder that when property values increase by thousands of percentage points, what might have seemed like simple family conversations decades ago can transform into multi-million-dollar legal disputes today.
And for families across Canada, the lesson is clear: when it comes to property and inheritance, putting agreements in writing is worth far more than the paper they’re printed on.
