Digest: Mauri Gwyn Developments Ltd. v Larson Manufacturing Co. of South Dakota, Inc., 2018 SKQB 152

Date:May 15, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 152

Docket Number: QB17537 , QBG 2404/17 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-05-15

Judges:

  • Elson

Subjects:

  • Real Property ��Certificate of Pending Litigation�� Discharge
  • Civil Procedure � Certificate of Pending Litigation
  • Statutes � Interpretation � The Queen�s Bench Act, 1998, Section 46, Section 47

Digest: The defendant applied for an order vacating the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that the plaintiff had had issued and registered against land to which the defendant held title. The applicant argued that the interest identified in the CPL was functionally identical to a miscellaneous interest that the plaintiff had earlier permitted to lapse after the applicant had applied under s. 46 of The Land Titles Regulations, 2001 to have it discharged. After the 30-day notice to lapse had expired and the plaintiff had not taken any steps to extend the interest or prove it, the Registrar discharged it. The plaintiff then commenced an action by statement of claim that sought a number of declarations relating to funds owed to it by the defendant�s predecessor in title as part of a development scheme pertaining to the land in question and then registered the CPL. The applicant submitted that the plaintiff was committing an abuse of the land titles registry system. The plaintiff responded that the interest represented by the CPL differed from that described in its earlier miscellaneous interest. The issues were: 1) whether the interest in the statement of claim and the corresponding CPL were different from that claimed in the lapsed miscellaneous interest; and 2) whether the CPL should be vacated.
HELD: The application was dismissed. The court found regarding each issue that: 1) the plaintiff commenced its action and a CPL issued from that action. That process was governed by s. 46 of The Queen�s Bench Act, 1998 and superseded the application of the lapsing procedure contemplated by the Regulations. The CPL complied with s. 46 of the Act and was not otherwise vacated under s. 47, then it remained valid and was unaffected by the lapsing of the prior registered miscellaneous interest; and 2) it could find no basis under either ss. 46(1) or 47(1) of the Act to vacate the CPL.

Statutes Considered:

  • Queen�s Bench Act, 1998, SS 1998, c Q-1.01, s 46
  • Queen�s Bench Act...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP