CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Computershare Trust Co. of Canada, 2015 ONCA 846

• Judge: Sharpe, Cronk and Miller, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 01, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONCA 846;(2015), 342 O.A.C. 49 (CA)

CIBC Mortgages v. Computershare Trust (2015), 342 O.A.C. 49 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.011

CIBC Mortgages Inc., Trading as FirstLine Mortgages (applicant/appellant) v. Computershare Trust Company of Canada (respondent/respondent)

(C60056)

Computershare Trust Company of Canada (applicant/respondent) v. CIBC Mortgages Inc., Trading as FirstLine Mortgages and the Director of Titles pursuant to s. 57(14) of the Land Titles Act (respondent/appellant)

(C60057; 2015 ONCA 846)

Indexed As: CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Computershare Trust Co. of Canada

Ontario Court of Appeal

Sharpe, Cronk and Miller, JJ.A.

December 4, 2015.

Summary:

Two applications were brought in the Superior Court to resolve a priority issue in relation to mortgages registered under the Land Titles Act (LTA). The application judge found that the owner of the property had fraudulently discharged the mortgage in favour of Computershare Trust Co. of Canada and that the Computershare mortgage should be restored and given priority over the subsequently registered mortgage in favour of CIBC Mortgages Inc., trading as FirstLine Mortgages (Firstline). Firstline appealed the orders.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. The court ordered that the appeals be transferred under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to the Divisional Court, which had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals pursuant to s. 27 of the LTA.

Courts - Topic 7446

Provincial courts - Ontario - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - General - The appeal provisions in the Land Titles Act were found in ss. 26 and 27 - At issue was whether the present appeals fell within the reach of s. 27 - If they did, the appeals lay to the Divisional Court and not the Court of Appeal - The appellant submitted that when s. 27 was read in the light of the heading "Further appeal" and the provisions authorizing the Director of Land Registration or the Director of Titles to conduct hearings, it could only refer to orders made under s. 26, dealing with appeals from decisions of the Director - The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed - The court stated that "While headings in statutes may be used as an interpretive aid, they are not determinative, especially where the language of the statute itself clearly points in a different direction ... Section 24 and the other provisions referred to above specifically contemplate applications coming directly to a Superior Court judge. The heading 'Further appeal' fails to reflect that aspect of the statutory scheme and cannot deprive s. 27 of its ordinary meaning that 'any person affected by an order made under this Act' has an appeal to the Divisional Court" - See paragraphs 7 to 8.

Courts - Topic 7446

Provincial courts - Ontario - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - General - Two applications were brought in the Superior Court to resolve a priority issue in relation to mortgages registered under the Land Titles Act (LTA) - The application judge found that the owner of the property had fraudulently discharged the mortgage in favour of Computershare Trust Co. of Canada and that the Computershare mortgage should be restored and given priority over the subsequently registered mortgage in favour of CIBC Mortgages Inc., trading as FirstLine Mortgages (Firstline) - Firstline appealed the orders - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals pursuant to s. 27 of the LTA - The appellant argued that the court should assume jurisdiction under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, which gave the court jurisdiction to hear an appeal that lay to the Divisional Court "if an appeal in the same proceeding lies to and is taken to" the Court of Appeal - The appellant argued that its appeal against the application judge's finding that Computershare did not have actual notice of the discharge of its mortgage was such an issue - The court disagreed - That factual finding was not a separate and discrete issue but rather part and parcel of the application judge's overall consideration of which mortgage had priority under the LTA - While the Court of Appeal had previously entertained appeals from orders of the Superior Court made under the LTA, the issue of jurisdiction was not raised or decided - Those decisions did not establish the jurisdiction of the court in a subsequent appeal - See paragraphs 9 to 12.

Courts - Topic 7514

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional Court - Jurisdiction - Whether appeal authorized by statute - [See both Courts - Topic 7446 ].

Mortgages - Topic 305

Land titles (Torrens) system - Statutory interpretation - [See first Courts - Topic 7446 ].

Statutes - Topic 1845

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Titles, headings and section numbers - Headings and marginal notes - [See first Courts - Topic 7446 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Jackson, [1946] S.C.R. 489, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Lohnes, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 167; 132 N.R. 297; 109 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 297 A.P.R. 145, refd to. [para. 8].

R.A. & J. Family Investment Corp. et al. v. Orzech et al. (1999), 121 O.A.C. 312; 44 O.R.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Household Realty Corp. v. Liu et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 141; 261 D.L.R.(4th) 679 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Lawrence v. Wright - see Lawrence v. Maple Trust Co. et al.

Lawrence v. Maple Trust Co. et al. (2007), 220 O.A.C. 19; 84 O.R. (3d) 94; 2007 ONCA 74, refd to. [para. 11].

Di Michele v. Di Michele - see 909403 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Di Michele.

909403 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Di Michele (2014), 319 O.A.C. 72; 2014 ONCA 261, refd to. [para. 11].

Amaranth L.L.C. v. Counsel Corp. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 395; 71 O.R.(3d) 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Pruner v. Ottawa Hunt and Golf Club Ltd. (2015), 339 O.A.C. 79; 2015 ONCA 609, refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 6(2) [para. 9].

Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-5, sect. 24(1) [para. 4]; sect. 26, sect. 27 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Benjamin Frydenberg and Sam Rappos, for the appellant;

Jeffrey Spiegelman and Christine Jonathan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 1, 2015, before Sharpe, Cronk and Miller, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal delivered the following decision on December 4, 2015.