Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: CitiFinancial Canada East Corporation v Touchie,

2010 NSSC 149

 

Date: 20100422

Docket: Hfx No. 297572

Registry: Halifax

 

Between:

CitiFinancial Canada East Corporation

Applicant

v.

 

Colin W. Touchie and L. Clare Foley

Respondents

 

- and -

 

CIBC Mortgages Inc.

Intervenor

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

Judge:                   The Honourable Justice Peter Bryson

 

Heard:                  March 24, 2010, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Chambers

 

Written Decision: April 22, 2010

 

Subject:                Real Property.  Land titles system.  Priorities.  Fraud.

 

Summary:             CIBC took a mortgage in 2005 from Respondents.  Through inadvertence it was not recorded.  CitiFinancial took a mortgage in 2007 which was recorded.  In 2008 Respondents refinanced with CitiFinancial.  After funding the mortgage, but before recording a CIBC representative spoke to CitiFinancial, asking for a postponement of CitiFinancial’s 2007 mortgage.  CitiFinancial declined.  The 2008 mortgage was recorded.  CIBC then recorded its 2005 mortgage, and claimed CitiFinancial could not claim priority because it knew of CIBC’s 2005 mortgage prior to recording its own.


Issue:          When did the 2008 CitiFinancial Mortgage “transaction” occur?  Did CitiFinancial lose priority owing to “fraud” (knowledge of CIBC’s prior mortgage)?

 

Result:                  CitiFinancial’s 2008 mortgage has priority over CIBC’s 2005 mortgage.  CitiFinancial recorded first.  The CitiFinancial mortgage transaction occurred when it took the mortgage and advanced funds.  It had no knowledge of the 2005 CIBC mortgage at the time.  Alternatively, CitiFinancial did not acquire knowledge constituting “fraud” during the CIBC -  CitiFinancial conversation.

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.