Author: Nigel Bankes Page 16 of 88

By: Nigel Bankes and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

Decision Commented On: Primrose Drilling Ventures v Registrar of Titles, 2021 SKCA 15

This case involves the rights acquired by a party (Primrose Drilling) who took a title that was encumbered by a registrar’s caveat. The caveat was filed to warn purchasers of a potential registrar’s error made back in the chain of title, but it was filed after a purchaser for value had got on the register relying on the flawed title.

The case came before the courts on the basis of a reference from the registrar relying on section 108 of The Land Titles Act, 2000, SS 2000, c L-5.1. The trial judge (Registrar of Titles and Great West Life Assurance Company and Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd, 2018 SKQB 290 (CanLII)) concluded that Primrose’s title was subject to whatever interest the Registrar was seeking to protect (in this case the interests of GWL, the successor in interest to a party wrongly deprived of the mineral title to the lands in question). We commented on the trial judgment at some length in “Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review.” We took the position that the registrar had no authority to file a caveat once a purchaser for value had got on title on the faith of the register and that Primrose (the last purchaser for value in the chain of purchasers for value) was entitled to a title free of the blemish represented by the registrar’s claim. We refer the reader to that post for a detailed analysis and discussion of relevant authorities from both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Read More

By: Nigel Bankes

 PDF Version: Forgery, Fraud and the Dower Act

Case Commented On: Inland Financial Inc v Guapo, 2018 ABQB 162 (Master) (CanLII), aff’d 2019 ABQB 15 (CanLII), aff’d 2020 ABCA 381 (CanLII)

Jose Neeves Guapo and Maria Guapo, a married couple, owned a home registered in the names “Jose Guapo and Maria Guapo” as joint tenants. Their son, Jose Domingos Guapo, lived in the home but had no ownership interest in it. It is important to note that father and son shared the same first name and surname and that the name on the register did not include Jose Guapo Sr’s middle name. The Court of Appeal summarized the key facts as follows (at para 5):

Jose Guapo Jr persuaded his mother to apply through a broker to Inland Financial for a loan to be secured by a mortgage on the home. He had done this on 12 different occasions with different brokers for progressively larger amounts. Inland Financial approved the loan in the amount of $245,000. The mortgage documents to secure the loan were prepared by Inland Financial’s lawyers and signed by Maria Guapo and Jose Guapo Jr, impersonating his father, who had no knowledge of the transaction. Inland Financial thought the son owned the house with his mother particularly since they had both sworn a statutory declaration that they were the owners and the house was their principal residence. The mortgage was registered against the title to the home. Funds were advanced and used to pay out two previous mortgages, also fraudulently obtained by Jose Guapo Jr, and the balance of the funds were paid into a bank account in the names of Maria Guapo and Jose Guapo Jr. It is unclear whether Maria Guapo understood the nature of the transaction as she did not speak English and did only what her son instructed her to do. She had received a Grade 4 education in Portugal, at the lawyer’s office her son spoke to her only in Portugese (sic), and she testified through an interpreter at questioning. There is no evidence that she received any funds from the mortgages.

When Jose Guapo Jr defaulted on the mortgage payments Inland commenced foreclosure proceedings. Inland also sought personal judgment against Jose Guapo Jr but did not seek a personal remedy in fraud against Maria Guapo. Jose and Maria Guapo defended; the son was noted in default.

As the title to this post suggests, these facts potentially engaged both the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15 and the Land Titles Act, RSA 2000, c L-4 (LTA). The Court of Appeal decided the case solely on the basis of the Dower Act while the judgments below addressed the implications of both statutes.

Read More