Law360 Canada ( February 6, 2026, 9:57 AM EST) -- Appeal by Donald and Sandra Monastyrski (collectively, the Monastyrskis) from a decision dismissing their application to set aside an order nisi for sale and granting Affinity Credit Union’s (Affinity) application to confirm a judicial sale. The central issue in this appeal was the correct interpretation of s. 44(12.3) of the Saskatchewan Farm Security Act (SFSA). The property was a homestead. Section 44(10) of SFSA prohibited court-ordered sales of mortgaged homesteads in foreclosure proceedings, but s. 44(12.3) of SFSA created an exemption where the mortgage was made solely for purchasing, constructing, or improving a homestead. The Monastyrskis argued that the exemption applied only if mortgage funds were actually used for those purposes, asserting that the protective purpose of the SFSA required lenders to monitor fund use and that any deviation defeated the exemption. Affinity contended that the exemption depended on the agreed purpose at the time of making the mortgage, not on subsequent use of funds, emphasizing the need for certainty to encourage lending. The mortgage agreement stated the loan was for building a new log cabin and included a clause confirming the exemption. Affinity advanced partial funds, but the home was never delivered. The Monastyrskis defaulted, and Affinity obtained foreclosure leave, an order nisi for sale, and later sought confirmation of the sale. The Monastyrskis applied to set aside the order, arguing s. 44(10) of SFSA barred the sale. The judge held the application was properly before him but dismissed it, finding s. 44(12.3) of SFSA applied because the mortgage was made solely for new construction. The Monastyrskis appealed, claiming the judge erred in interpreting s. 44(12.3) of SFSA. Affinity maintained the interpretation was correct....