Skip to main content

In This Volume

  • 163 (1) If an applicant is unable to comply with a requisition of the registrar that a particular instrument or document, including an absolute certificate of title, a duplicate indefeasible title or a certificate of charge, be produced or deposited, because it is in the possession of the registered owner or another person who refuses or neglects to produce the instrument, the registrar may,
  • (a) instead of proceeding under section 160, and
  • (b) on being satisfied that the applicant has otherwise established a good safe holding and marketable title to the land in question,
  • give notice in the form approved by the director to the person who has possession of the instrument.
  • (2) If a duplicate indefeasible title for land affected by an expropriation notice is issued at the time the notice is filed, the registrar must
  • (a)

    cancel the duplicate indefeasible title, and

  • (b) give notice of its cancellation to the person to whom it was delivered at the person’s address specified in section 176(5)
  • and the registrar must not issue another duplicate indefeasible title for the land until a vesting notice or notice of abandonment respecting the expropriation has been filed in accordance with the Expropriation Act.

1979-219-160; 1982-60-36, proclaimed effective August 1, 1983;1987-60-12, effective January 29, 1988 (B.C. Reg. 39/88); 2004-66-93, effective January 20, 2005 (B.C. Reg. 16/2005).


Notice of Intention to Register on Non-Production of Instrument

The director has approved the use of Form 19, Notice of Intention to Register on Non-Production of Instrument.


Instrument Held as Security

Where a person possessing an instrument claims to hold it as security for a charge on land or other property, the registrar usually refuses to register the application until the parties have resolved their dispute by negotiation or litigation.


See s. 193 of the Act regarding lost or destroyed duplicate indefeasible titles.


Registration Where Instrument Not Produced

The petitioners claimed to have acquired land from the vendor under an agreement for sale and obtained a decree of specific performance with respect to the agreement in proceedings commenced after the petitioners learned of a third party’s claim of title to the land. The third party had initially taken the certificate of title from the vendor as security for a loan and claimed to have subsequently taken a conveyance from the vendor, although no effort had been made to register the conveyance. The registrar refused to register the petitioners’ decree of specific performance due to the non-production of the certificate of title. The court directed the registrar to register the decree despite the non-production of the certificate of title (In Re Land Registry Act and Morrison and Pollard, [1926] 2 W.W.R. 371 (B.C.S.C.)).