In CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Computershare Trust Co. of Canada,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered applications from competing mortgagees to a property where the first charge had been discharged by fraud and subsequent mortgages were obtained. The Court decided that although the subsequent mortgagees were innocent parties unaware of the fraudulent discharge on the first mortgage, the first mortgagee retained priority.
In 2008, two homeowners, Dhanraj and Sumatie Lowtan (the Owners) applied for a loan from Computershare Trust Company of Canada (Computershare) secured by a first charge on the property. In 2009, unbeknownst to Computershare, its mortgage was discharged by someone fraudulently claiming to have authority to bind Computershare. In March 2011, the Owners granted a charge in favor of Maria Giovanni and Darlene Geraci, while they continued to make payments to Computershare.
In July 2011, the Owners approached CIBC to obtain a new mortgage. Despite the fact that the Owners were still making monthly payments to Computershare, they told CIBC that the only charge they had was the mortgage with Giovanni and Geraci. CIBC granted a "first" mortgage, on the condition of payout and discharge of the Giovanni/Geraci mortgage. In December 2012, the Owners then approached Secure Capital MIC Inc. (Secure Capital) to register a "second" mortgage. This time, the Owners told Secure Capital about the CIBC mortgage, but still did not disclose the original Computershare mortgage.
Payments on the Computershare mortgage continued until January 4, 2013, after which time the mortgage went into default. Less than a month later, the Owners defaulted on both the CIBC and Secure Capital mortgages. On April 9, 2013, Secure Capital issued a notice of sale.
On April 12, 2013, Computershare discovered that its mortgage had been fraudulently discharged. Shortly thereafter, the Owners filed for bankruptcy and vacated the property. Towards the end of May 2013, a caution was registered against the property, indicating that the discharge of the Computershare mortgage may be fraudulent.
While CIBC sold the property with all parties' consent, the proceeds were insufficient to satisfy all three debts. As a result, CIBC and Computershare each brought an application seeking a declaration that it had first charge on the property. Computershare also applied to have the discharge declared void. Secure Capital sought a declaration that its mortgage ranked second behind CIBC.
The Court found that the Owners knew about the fraudulent discharge.2
In the circumstances, CIBC and Secure Capital unsuccessfully attempted to argue that the charges granted by the Owners to them were not fraudulent pursuant to section 78 of the Land Titles Act (LTA), which confirms that an instrument is effective according to its nature and intent once it is registered. However, subsection 4.1 excludes fraudulent instruments and subsection 4.2 preserves non-fraudulent instruments, including those registered subsequent to a fraudulent one.3
The Court found that since the Owners knew about the fraudulent discharge, they did not own the interest in the property which they purported to have secured to the benefit of CIBC and Secure Capital. The subsequent mortgages were therefore fraudulent instruments under section 78 (4.2) of the LTA, and their priority had to give way to Computershare's prior (though "discharged") security.4
Although the purpose of the LTA is to save those dealing with registered properties from having to check behind the register to investigate the title,5 that reliance on the registry is "not a one-way street."6 In this case, Computershare legitimately expected that it was enough to register its charge on title, which would act as notice to anyone who obtained future charges on title.7
The Court was ultimately guided by the "theory of deferred indefeasibility," citing the decision in Lawrence v. Wright8 (Lawrence). Lawrence effectively did away with the "immediate indefeasibility" theory, which held that the fact that a transfer was obtained by fraud is irrelevant and the subsequent party is entitled to rely on the register.9 In contrast, the "theory of deferred indefeasibility" sets out three types of parties for the purpose of determining title when there has been fraud on a property: the original owner, the intermediate owner (the one who deals with the fraudster), and the deferred owner (a bona fide purchaser or encumbrance for value without notice who takes from the intermediate owner). Recognizing that the intermediate owner has the opportunity to avoid the fraud, only a deferred owner can defeat the original owner's title.10 In this case, CIBC was the intermediate owner, since it acquired an interest from a fraudster, and had the opportunity to investigate the transaction and avoid the fraud. There was no deferred owner, which left Computershare with priority.
Implications of the decision
This decision arguably places the burden of guarding against fraud with the mortgagee closest to the act of fraud itself. In this case, the Court suggested that CIBC could have found out by asking the right questions, such as how the homeowners were able to pay off the Computershare mortgage despite their financial difficulties.11 It is essential for mortgagees to prudently examine their prospective borrowers' circumstances to ensure their priority is not jeopardized by fraud perpetrated on an earlier mortgagee.
Mortgagees must also be diligent in following up on any information they receive after granting a loan to a borrower, even if secured by a first charge. In this case, the evidence did not suggest that Computershare should have been aware of the fraudulent discharge.12 However, despite the continuation of payments, Computershare still had a duty to be vigilant. As the Court observed, a borrower's ability to continue mortgage payments may be a part of the fraudulent scheme itself.13
1. 2015 ONSC 543 ["Computershare"].
2. Ibid at paras 30-36 [Computershare].
3. Land Titles Act, RSO 1990 c L.5, s 78.
4. Computershare, supra note 1 at paras 51, 62.
5. Ibid at para 53.
6. Ibid at para 43.
8. 2007 ONCA 74.
9. Ibid at para 36.
10.Ibid at para 21; Computershare, supra note 1 at para 58.
11. Computershare, supra note 1 at para 58.
12 Ibid at paras 25-29.
13. Ibid at para 35.
This publication was co-authored by Jonathan Pinkus, an articling student in Dentons' Toronto office.
Dentons is a global firm driven to provide you with the competitive edge in an increasingly complex and interconnected marketplace. We were formed by the March 2013 combination of international law firm Salans LLP, Canadian law firm Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) and international law firm SNR Denton.
Dentons is built on the solid foundations of three highly regarded law firms. Each built its outstanding reputation and valued clientele by responding to the local, regional and national needs of a broad spectrum of clients of all sizes – individuals; entrepreneurs; small businesses and start-ups; local, regional and national governments and government agencies; and mid-sized and larger private and public corporations, including international and global entities.
Now clients benefit from more than 2,500 lawyers and professionals in 79 locations in 52 countries across Africa, Asia Pacific, Canada, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Russia and the CIS, the UK and the US who are committed to challenging the status quo to offer creative, actionable business and legal solutions.
Learn more at www.dentons.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.