Canada: What Happened To My Mortgage?

In 2015, and just before his retirement, Justice Murray of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice left us with a challenging legal decision that, for the time being at least, will matter to mortgage lenders.

Mortgage lenders rely on one fundamental thing when they issue a commitment letter for a mortgage: good title. And good title is something that a lender, its lawyer and its title insurer get comfort on from the land titles registry. The land titles registry, therefore, is the root of our confidence in the state of title. Registered instruments are, by virtue of their being on the registry, fixed in place, reliable and immutable. And we expect that only a handful of statutory exceptions to title, deemed trusts or liens can colour our certainty on the priority of a registered mortgage.

The case this post considers is CIBC Mortgages Inc. v Computershare Trust Company.

Our main characters in this particular story are Mr. and Mrs. Lowtan, who we will consolidate into one person and who we will ominously call "the Malfeasants".

The Malfeasants owned a home on the sleepy suburban street of "Chipmunk Crescent" in Brampton.

In 2008 the Malfeasants applied to Computershare and received a first mortgage in the approximate amount of $280,000 to refinance existing mortgage debt. A mortgage was registered on title on November 21, 2008.

Nine months later, on August 26, 2009, without the consent or knowledge of Computershare, the Malfeasants somehow managed to fraudulently register a discharge of the Computershare mortgage on title to the Property.

However, our Malfeasants, being relatively clever, continued to pay the monthly debt service payments to Computershare for the next four and a half years.

Almost two years passed, and in March 2011 the Malfeasants, through a mortgage broker, applied to CIBC for a first mortgage. In their financial disclosure the Malfeasants omitted any reference to their Computershare debt, and on July 28, 2011, CIBC provided a mortgage loan to the Malfeasants in the amount of $252,800, and took what it believed to be a first ranking mortgage of the property.

Then, a year and a half later in December 2012, the Malfeasants approached Secure Capital for a second mortgage. Their application (of course) disclosed the existence of the CIBC mortgage but again made no reference to the fraudulently discharged Computershare mortgage.

All along, Computershare was receiving its monthly debt service payments happily, and I like to think was probably still sending the Malfeasants an annual Holiday card. Secure Capital approved and granted a second mortgage to the Malfeasants for $32,000, and registered what it believed to be a second ranking charge on December 11, 2012.

On February 1, 2013, the Malfeasants defaulted on both the CIBC mortgage and the Secure Capital Mortgage.

By April 12th, the Malfeasants had stopped making debt service payments to Computershare, and so Computershare discovered that its mortgage had been fraudulently discharged.

By April 25th, the Malfeasants had made an assignment into bankruptcy and had vacated the house.

Notices of sale were issued and the three lenders made their applications to court.

The proceeds of a court ordered sale of the property amounted to $298,000, which is to say (if you are not doing the math):

  1. 94 percent of the amount owing to Computershare;
  2. 96 percent of the aggregate amounts owing to CIBC and Secure Capital; and
  3. all three outstanding mortgages combined were 190 percent of the available sale proceeds.

One more important fact. All three lenders are innocent. No lender was complicit. No lender participated in the fraud, knew about the fraud, or should have known about the fraud.

Before we consider the decision, a little refresher on the Land Titles Act and the law of deferred indefeasibility might be helpful.

The land titles system was established in Ontario in 1885, and its general purpose, and what we all rely on, is that it provides the public with security of title and facility of transfer.

The sanctity of title is established by a register and the guarantee of the government that (subject to certain statutory exemptions) the person named on the register is the owner and has perfect title subject only to registered encumbrances.

And so there are three main principles or concepts that underlie the land titles system and its registry:

  1. The Mirror Principle. That is, that the register is a perfect mirror of the state of title;
  2. The Curtain Principle. That a purchaser (or a lender) need not investigate the history of past dealings with the land and search behind the register; and
  3. The Insurance Principle. That the state guarantees the accuracy of the register and compensates any person who suffers a loss as a result of inaccuracy.

Common law courts have applied these principles when interpreting the Land Titles Act and have come up with what is called the "doctrine of deferred indefeasibility of title". It's called that because lawyers want to make things appear daunting and mysterious.

There are a couple of concepts built into the principle. Firstly, it includes the concept that the registration of an instrument on title cannot make an invalid or fraudulent instrument valid in favour of the purchaser named in the instrument (i.e., a transfer or a mortgage). So for example, if you are the buyer of a property and the seller signed the transfer fraudulently, you as the buyer cannot point to the transfer and claim that the "registration" of the transfer protects you from the true owner. Why? Because as the recipient of the fraudulent instrument you were closest to the fraud (even if you are innocent) and you had an opportunity to investigate and avoid the fraud.

However, if having purchased the property for consideration you were to then, in good faith, sell the property to a third party who had no notice of the fraud, the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility will protect that end purchaser from the claims of the true owner, on the basis that the end purchaser has the right to rely on the register and need not look behind it.

Or to put it another way, the recipient of title under a fraudulent instrument cannot rely on its registration to defeat the true owner, but if it sells the property to another, that other end purchaser can. Why? Because the recipient of the fraudulent instrument was closest to the fraud (even if innocent) and had an opportunity to investigate and avoid the fraud whereas the end purchaser had no opportunity to investigate or discover the fraud.

And intuitively, I think you will agree that this makes sense in a world of forgeries and fraudulent instruments. A mortgage lender should have a duty to investigate its borrower, its signature, its identity and its capacity (which is why lenders and their lawyers have strict "know your client" rules and underwriting standards), and it makes sense that if you accept a fraudulently executed mortgage, you should bear some risk of being defeated by a claim of the true owner.

The person who receives title or an interest under a fraudulent instrument may be defeated by the true owner but an ultimate third-party buyer, one step removed from the fraudulent instrument, may not be so defeated. It may rely on the registry and on the transfer, even if fraudulent, as forming its root of title.

The court calls that mortgagee in the middle the "intermediate owner".

It's the one person who could have investigated the fraud and is vulnerable to a claim even though its mortgage is registered.

In our case, the court found that not only was the discharge of the Computershare mortgage a fraudulent instrument, but the new mortgage in favour of CIBC was also a fraudulent instrument, not in the sense that it contained an impersonation or identity theft or forgery but because it was wrongly trying to convey an interest that the Malfeasants no longer owned.

What does this mean?

Because the court found that CIBC was the co-called "Intermediate Owner", CIBC was determined to be the lender closest to the fraud; the one that received its interest under a fraudulent instrument and therefore (apparently) could have investigated the fraud.

Accordingly, Computershare had its mortgage reinstated, the CIBC mortgage was determined to rank second and Secure Capital ended up in third.

Now if you don't immediately understand the importance of that, I will spell it out. The court's decision means:

  1. Lenders cannot just rely on the register to be satisfied that a prior mortgage discharge was valid granted, even if the discharge has nothing to do with the lender's advance.
  2. According to the court, CIBC apparently could have investigated the fraud somehow. The court said that "for example, an inquiry as to how the Malfeasants were able to pay off the Computershare mortgage given their financial circumstances might have raised concerns". This means (it would seem) not only having a view of the borrower's current financial situation, but an understanding and reconciliation of their historical major dealings with the property.
  3. It means that the level of diligence that lenders have to put into the circumstances of the loan they are granting has been somehow elevated by this case. It begs such questions as:
  • Must lenders always get additional evidence of how past registered transactions were funded? Do lenders need copies of old record books? payout statements? financial records? Old certificates of incumbency?
  • Do lenders need to call their prior lending institutions to ensure that they confirm what is evidenced on title with respect to prior mortgages or other dealings? In other words, do lenders need to pull back the curtain of the registry?
  • Will lenders' solicitors start qualifying their opinions on title because they cannot give an absolute answer based on the title registry anymore?
  • And if a lender can no longer just rely on the register, how far back does it need to investigate?

As you can see these kinds of questions quickly lead to the unraveling of the "Mirror" and "Curtain" principles described earlier, because this decision means that the absolute protections afforded by the registry are not only eroded but potentially altogether undermined.

Here are my two cents:

  1. If the case is correct on a technical interpretation of the statute, then it is correct technically only and entirely incorrect as a law of general application. Which is to say, it is bad law. Nonetheless, for the time being, it is the law.
  2. The notion that a purchaser or mortgagee cannot hide behind the fact that its mortgage or transfers is registered where the fraud was discoverable, is not bad law. Those are the forgery and identity theft cases, and those would have applied here had the mortgages been forged or had they been granted by strangers. But the mortgage documents were, in and of themselves sound and their fraudulent nature was undetectable. They were granted by the owners and there was nothing about the mortgage documents themselves that CIBC could have discovered. The fact that the mortgages were one step in the larger fraud should not have put CIBC to the obligation to investigate old registered instruments (such as the Computershare Discharge) that, on their face, had nothing to do with the new mortgages.
  3. If we are to take this case seriously, and for now we have to, then there are risks here that lawyers cannot absorb for lenders with a title opinion, and which can only be underwritten as either internal risks of the lender or external risks to be title insured. It is really quite that simple. In a commercial loan scenario, each of these three innocent lenders, if they had title policies, would have coverage in these circumstances. But the overriding point is that title insurance is the only available external product to fully address the risks raised in this case.

As for next steps, I would suggest as follows;

  1. Firstly, stay tuned. This case is going to appeal in 2016 and in my view it should be overturned. If it isn't, and the legislature doesn't fix the problem, then we will have a whole new set of things to discuss later this year.
  2. Secondly, in the meantime, err on the side of title insurance; and
  3. Thirdly, lenders should refresh their internal underwriting diligence with this case in mind. Remember the court's words that CIBC should have looked at the Malfeasants' historical financial record to determine how they could have afforded to obtain the Computershare discharge, and ask yourself if your "know your lender's clients' client" and underwriting diligence would have rooted out that fraud.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.