Canada: Secured Parties Beware: Security Interests In Transferred Collateral

Last Updated: February 1 2016
Article by Jeffrey Alpert


The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lisec America Inc. v. Barber Suffolk Ltd. (2012), 86 C.B.R. (5th) 316 and 94 C.B.R. (5th) 16, should serve as a warning to all secured parties regarding the risks involved in taking a security interest in collateral which is subsequently transferred by the debtor to a transferee without the prior consent of the secured party. In this case, a supplier took a purchase money security interest in equipment that it sold to the debtor. The debtor subsequently transferred the equipment to a related corporation without the consent of the supplier and without notifying the supplier about the transfer. The transferee then granted a security interest in the equipment to another secured party who registered a financing statement against the transferee under the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.10 (the "PPSA"). After the supplier found out about the unauthorized transfer of the equipment, the supplier registered a financing change statement against the transferee under the PPSA within 30 days after learning about the transfer in accordance with section 48(2) of the PPSA. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the supplier's security interest took priority over the secured party's interest in the equipment. In reaching this decision, the Court considered the rationale behind the PPSA and whether the supplier or the secured party should bear the loss involved in financing the equipment.

The Facts

The facts of the case were as follows:

1. The Barber Glass group of companies were in the business of supplying glass products. Barber Suffolk Ltd. ("Suffolk") and Barber Glass Industries Inc. ("Glass") were related companies in that group.

2. On July 16, 2007, Lisec America Inc. ("Lisec") sold a waterjet glass cutting machine (the "Waterjet") to Suffolk pursuant to an equipment purchase agreement which provided for a purchase money security interest (a "PMSI") in favour of Lisec.

3. On the same date, Lisec also sold two additional pieces of equipment to Glass.

4. On the same date, unbeknownst to Lisec, Suffolk in turn sold the Waterjet to Glass.

5. On June 19, 2008, Lisec perfected its security interests by registering a PPSA financing statement against Suffolk with respect to the Waterjet and a PPSA financing statement against Glass with respect to the other two pieces of equipment.

6. On June 28, 2008, Lisec delivered all three pieces of equipment to the facilities of Glass in Collingwood, Ontario.

7. Around the time of the above delivery, Glass was looking for additional financing. Glass approached Lisec and asked Lisec to release its security interests in the Glass equipment so that Glass could obtain additional financing from Roynat Capital Inc. ("Roynat").

8. On June 24, 2008, Roynat registered a PPSA financing statement against Glass.

9. On July 7, 2008, Glass executed a debenture in favour of Roynat, which debenture specifically granted Roynat a security interest in the Waterjet.

10. On July 9, 2008, Lisec discharged its PPSA registration against Glass, at the request of Glass and Roynat.

11. Some of the indebtedness of Glass to Lisec was repaid out of the funds advanced by Roynat.

12. On November 10, 2010, Glass was placed in receivership. Shortly thereafter, Lisec learned for the first time that Suffolk had earlier sold the Waterjet to Glass and that the Waterjet was considered in the receivership as an asset of Glass.

13. On November 17, 2010, Lisec claimed a PMSI in the Waterjet and on November 29, 2010, Lisec registered a financing change statement showing Glass as the new debtor in respect of its security interest in the Waterjet.

14. As part of the receivership proceedings relating to Glass, the receiver was seeking to sell the assets of Glass, including the Waterjet.

15. Lisec objected to the inclusion of the Waterjet in the asset sale and applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a determination of its right and entitlement in the Waterjet.

Section 48(2) of the PPSA – Transfer of Collateral without Prior Consent

Both the decisions of the application judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal involved the consideration of section 48(2) of the PPSA which provides as follows:

"Where a security interest is perfected by registration and the debtor, without the prior consent of the secured party, transfers the debtor's interest in all or part of the collateral, the security interest in the collateral transferred becomes unperfected thirty days after the later of,

(a) the transfer, if the secured party had prior knowledge of the transfer and if the secured party had, at the time of the transfer, the information required to register a financing change statement; and

(b) the day the secured party learns the information required to register a financing change statement,

unless the secured party registers a financing change statement or takes possession of the collateral within such thirty days."

The Reasons of the Application Judge

The application judge held that the transfer of the Waterjet from Suffolk to Glass did not terminate Lisec's security interest in the Waterjet. The application judge also held that even though Lisec named Suffolk (not Glass) in its PPSA registration, section 48(2) of the PPSA applied and therefore Lisec's security interest did not become unperfected as a result of the unauthorized transfer. However, the application judge found that Lisec's discharge of its PPSA registration against Glass unperfected Lisec's PMSI in the Waterjet because Lisec had registered a financing statement against Glass, because the wording of the financing statement was broad enough to capture the Waterjet as well as the other two pieces of equipment sold by Lisec to Glass, and because Lisec had discharged the Glass registration without qualification. Accordingly, the application judge ruled in favour of Roynat. Lisec appealed from that order.

The Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Lisec's appeal and ruled in favour of Lisec. The Court declared that Lisec's security interest in the Waterjet ranked first in priority to Roynat's security interest in the Waterjet.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that the unauthorized transfer of the Waterjet from Suffolk to Glass did not unperfect Lisec's security interest in the Waterjet, because Lisec properly registered a financing statement against Glass within 30 days after learning about the transfer. The Court of Appeal described the purpose of section 48(2) of the PPSA as follows:

"The purpose of this provision is to protect creditors who have taken all proper steps to perfect their security under the PPSA from losing their priority because of an unknown transfer of the protected asset to another debtor. Since the PPSA regime protects priority by means of registration against the name of the debtor, the Act provides the secured party in such circumstances with a grace period after becoming aware of the transfer to preserve its priority by registering a financing change statement against the new debtor as well. Accordingly, since Lisec registered its financing statement within 30 days of learning the information required to do so, the effect of s.48(2) is that Lisec's security interest in the Waterjet – as protected by the Barber Suffolk registration – remain perfected and entitled to priority over any registrations made against Barber Glass, and covering the same collateral, during the period between the transfer and the registration of Lisec's subsequent financing change statement."

The Court of Appeal then proceeded to consider the effect of the discharge by Lisec of its PPSA registration against Glass, a registration that was never intended to apply to the Waterjet, which, in the words of the Court of Appeal "muddies the waters". It disagreed with the application judge's conclusion that the effect of Lisec's discharge of its PPSA registration against Glass on July 9, 2008, was to unperfect Lisec's PMSI in the Waterjet. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that Lisec and Roynat were both innocent providers of credit and that one of them would suffer a loss as a result of the priority determination. It noted that Lisec had no reason to believe that the contested collateral, namely, the Waterjet, would be included in the assets of Glass over which Lisec had agreed to release its security interest. On the other hand, Roynat advanced its funds and perfected its security interest in the collateral of Glass without knowing that Lisec claimed a security interest in Waterjet. Ironically, Roynat had every reason to believe that Lisec did not have any security interest in the Waterjet, since Lisec had expressly discharged its PPSA registration against the collateral of Glass at Roynat's request before Roynat advanced its funds.

The Court of Appeal determined that the security interest of Lisec took priority over the security interest of Roynat in the Waterjet for two reasons:

1. Lisec's interest in the Waterjet did not attach through Lisec's PPSA registration against Glass. Suffolk and Glass each executed equipment purchase agreements in favour of Lisec granting security interests in specific pieces of equipment – in the case of Suffolk, the Waterjet, and in the case of Glass, two other pieces of equipment. Glass never signed a security agreement granting Lisec a security interest in the Waterjet. The fact that Glass ultimately became the owner of the Waterjet did not alter this result. Since Lisec's PPSA registration against Glass did not cover the Waterjet, neither the above PPSA registration nor its discharge could have any impact on the operation of the provisions of s.48(2) of the PPSA in preserving the priority of Lisec's security interest in the Waterjet.

2. The Lisec PPSA registration and discharge against Glass were irrelevant in any event. Lisec's PPSA registration against Suffolk was a stand-alone registration, which was not dependent upon nor it was replaced by Lisec's PPSA registration against Glass. Lisec's PPSA registration against Suffolk remained in place and remain perfected at all material times as a result of the operation of s.48(2) of the PPSA. In the words of the Court, the Lisec PPSA registration against Glass and the subsequent discharge of the above registration were "red herrings".

The Court of Appeal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Royal Bank v. Sparrow Electric Corp. (1997), 44 C.B.R. (3d) 1, in which it was stated that the purpose of the PPSA is to "increase certainty and predictability in secured transactions through the creation of a coherent system of priorities."

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the position of Roynat was a difficult one and stated as follows:

"It is true that lenders in the position of Roynat are vulnerable in situations such as this case presents. But the legislature has given a clear indication through the operation of s.48(2) of the PPSA that lenders in the position of Lisec are to prevail. There is no lack of certainty or predictability when the provisions of the Act as a whole are properly applied."


This case demonstrates some of the risks involved in taking security in personal property in Ontario. Unlike the land registry system for real property, there is no way in Ontario to search the title to personal property in order to determine the ownership of personal property, such as machinery and equipment. At the time that Lisec registered its PPSA financing statement against Suffolk, Lisec believed that Suffolk was the owner of the Waterjet and did not know that Suffolk had sold and transferred the Waterjet to Glass. Similarly, at the time that Roynat registered its PPSA financing statement against Glass, it believed that Glass was the owner of the Waterjet and did not know that Glass had acquired the Waterjet from Suffolk subject to the prior security interest in favour of Lisec.

How were Lisec and Roynat supposed to protect their respective security interests under these circumstances? Section 48(2) of the PPSA is intended to protect secured parties like Lisec from a transfer of the collateral without their consent by maintaining their security interest in the collateral following the transfer until the expiration of the 30 day grace period following the date that the secured party becomes aware of the transfer and learns the information required to register a financing change statement. According to the Courts, the purpose of this approach is to increase certainty and predictability in secured transactions through the creation of a coherent system of priorities. A secured party in the position of Lisec is under no obligation to make inquiries as to whether its debtor still owns the collateral. However, as soon as the secured party becomes aware of a transfer that was made without its prior written consent, the secured party must ensure that it maintains its security in the transferred collateral by complying with the provisions of s.48(2) of the PPSA. Lawyers acting for secured parties should refer to these requirements in their reporting letters to their clients.

For a lender in Roynat's position, there is, unfortunately, no real way to protect itself from a priority claim of a secured party in Lisec's position. In theory, Roynat could have tried to protect itself by making inquiries as to the chain of title of all of the machinery and equipment apparently in the possession and ownership of Glass. As a practical matter, these types of inquiries are seldom made because there is no system in Ontario for searching the ownership of personal property. In these sorts of commercial transactions, lawyers should make their lending clients aware of the limitations of the PPSA. Lender's counsel shall also qualify their legal opinions by noting that the enforceability of security agreements is subject to the provisions of the PPSA.

Some lenders may ask their lawyers to provide a legal opinion that the debtor owns its personal property and that the lender has a first priority security interest in the debtor's personal property. In response to this request, lenders' counsel should advise their clients that it is not the practice in Ontario to provide such opinions in connection with security over personal property. Lenders' counsel should search against the debtor under the PPSA and advise their clients regarding all of the outstanding registrations against the debtor. The lender must then decide whether it will treat these registrations as prior permitted encumbrances, or whether these registrations should be discharged or postponed in favour of the lender's registration.

The PPSA is complex legislation. This case is another reminder that taking security in a debtor's personal property is subject to certain risks inherent in the PPSA, including the risk of prior security interests in transferred collateral.

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.

Jeffrey Alpert
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.