Scott v. Pickell and Pierce Investments Ltd., (1984) 1 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

JudgeBrooke, Lacourcière and Weatherston, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateFebruary 03, 1984
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1984), 1 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

Scott v. Pickell (1984), 1 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Scott v. Pickell and Pierce Investments Limited

Indexed As: Scott v. Pickell and Pierce Investments Ltd.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Brooke, Lacourcière and Weatherston, JJ.A.

February 3, 1984.

Summary:

In 1932 William and Frank McKay purchased mortgaged property as tenants in common and registered the property under the Land Titles Act. Default occurred in 1935 and the mortgagee took possession and rented the property continuously until 1982, when it exercised the power of sale under the mortgage. The property was sold again to a third party. A descendant of the McKays' applied under rule 612(1)(b) for an order declaring the rights of the parties and under s. 159 of the Land Titles Act for an order that the register be rectified.

The Ontario High Court held that the descendant was entitled to the proceeds of the last sale, one-half of which was to be held in trust for the beneficiaries of Frank's estate, because the exercise of the mortgagee's power of sale was barred by s. 23(1) of the Limitations Act. The mortgagee and third party appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held the sale by the mortgagee was valid, because s. 23(1) did not apply to a sale by a mortgagee under a power of sale.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 4002

Recovery of land - What constitutes - Section 23(1) of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, stated that "no action shall be brought to recover out of any land or rent any sum of money secured by any mortgage or lien, ..., but within ten years next after a present right to receive it accrued ..." - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 23 did not apply to a sale by a mortgagee under a power of sale, because sale proceedings were actions for the recovery of land, and not for the recovery of money out of land.

Cases Noticed:

Harlock v. Ashberry (1882), 19 Ch. D. 539, refd to. [para. 6].

McDonald v. Grundy (1904), 8 O.L.R. 113, overruled [para. 12].

Re Steeves et al. and Hoslam House (1975), 8 O.R.(2d) 165, dist. [para. 13].

In re Alison; Johnson v. Mounsey (1879), 11 Ch. D. 284, consd. [para. 15].

Nutson v. Hanrahan (1922), 53 O.L.R. 99, affd. [1925] S.C.R. 662, refd to. [para. 16].

Edmunds v. Waugh (1866), L.R. 1 Eq. 418, refd to. [para. 16].

In re Marshfield (1887), 34 Ch. D. 721, refd to. [para. 16].

Wrixon v. Vize (1842), 3 Dr. & War. 104, refd to. [para. 17].

Harlock v. Ashberry (1882), 19 Ch. D. 539, refd to. [para. 17].

Heath v. Pugh (1882), 7 App. Cas. 235, refd to. [para. 17].

The Trust and Loan Company of Canada v. Stevenson et al. (1892), 20 O.A.R. 66, refd to. [para. 17].

Doe d. William Jones and William Davies v. George Williams and Richard Herbert (1836), 5 Ad. & El. 291, consd. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, sect. 23(1) [para. 3].

Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 230, sect. 98 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (3rd Ed.), vol. 19, art. 87, p. 87-47 [para. 14].

Counsel:

R.B. Moldaver, Q.C., for the appellants;

Gavin MacKenzie, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 8 and 9, 1983, before Brooke, Lacourciere and Weatherston, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On February 3, 1984, Weatherston, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • LeBar c. Canada,
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 1988
    ...B.C.G.E.U. c. Colombie-Britannique (Pro-cureur général), [ 1988] 2 R.C.S. 214; Gould c. Procureur général du Canada, [1984] 1 C.F. 1 119 (l'° inst.); [1984] 1 C.F. 1133 (C.A.); confirmé par [1984] 2 R.C.S. 124; 13 D.L.R. (4th) 491; Rookes v. Barnard, [1964......
  • McVan General Contracting v. Arthur, (2002) 163 O.A.C. 11 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • April 22, 2002
    ...30]. Ball v. Donais (1993), 64 O.A.C. 85 ; 13 O.R.(3d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34]. Scott v. Pickell and Pierce Investments (1984), 1 O.A.C. 327; 45 O.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), dist. [para. Behmanesh et al. v. Kaplan, [2000] O.T.C. 195 ; 31 R.P.R.(3d) 48 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43]......
2 cases
  • LeBar c. Canada,
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 1988
    ...B.C.G.E.U. c. Colombie-Britannique (Pro-cureur général), [ 1988] 2 R.C.S. 214; Gould c. Procureur général du Canada, [1984] 1 C.F. 1 119 (l'° inst.); [1984] 1 C.F. 1133 (C.A.); confirmé par [1984] 2 R.C.S. 124; 13 D.L.R. (4th) 491; Rookes v. Barnard, [1964......
  • McVan General Contracting v. Arthur, (2002) 163 O.A.C. 11 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • April 22, 2002
    ...30]. Ball v. Donais (1993), 64 O.A.C. 85 ; 13 O.R.(3d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34]. Scott v. Pickell and Pierce Investments (1984), 1 O.A.C. 327; 45 O.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), dist. [para. Behmanesh et al. v. Kaplan, [2000] O.T.C. 195 ; 31 R.P.R.(3d) 48 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43]......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT