168 Summary Rejection Of Defective Application

PRACTICE

Conditional Applications

An applicant cannot apply for registration conditionally. For example, an applicant may not instruct the registrar to register the instrument only if the title is unencumbered. The registrar cannot act as an agent in establishing a good safe holding and marketable title.

Photocopies for Hardcopy Submissions

Applications prepared in whole or in part by photocopy are acceptable provided that:

1. all signatures are original and in dark ink;
2. the copy is clear and capable of being recopied;
3. the paper is durable; and
4. the document is capable of being scanned and stored electronically using the equipment in the land title office.

Common Law Presumptions regarding Alterations

Because of the need for the registrar to be satisfied of a good safe holding and marketable title, and because of the duty of the registrar to protect the assurance fund, the registrar has always strictly interpreted the common law presumptions regarding alterations to documents. See the case annotations below under “Case Law”.

Making Alterations

All parties should initial an alteration unless the registrar dispenses with this requirement. Special considerations may arise where the alteration has obliterated the original words. Depending on the circumstances, the registrar may call for evidence of what was obliterated. All affected parties must initial an alteration to an instrument made subsequent to its receipt by the registrar.

Applications Requiring Preliminary Inspection

Under the authority of s. 168(1), the registrar causes the following applications to undergo preliminary inspection before they are received:

• Caveat (Land Title Act, s. 282)
• Certificate of Pending Litigation (Land Title Act, s. 215)
• Expropriation (Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125 and Expropriation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-21)
• Injunction (Land Title Act, s. 284)
• Property Freezing Order (Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, s. 161)
• Provisional Indefeasible Title (Land Title Act, s. 193)
• Securities Act Charge (Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, s. 164.18)

Applications requiring preliminary inspection are inspected Monday to Friday (excluding holidays) from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Once submitted, a myLTSA message is provided to the submitter warning that the application requires preliminary inspection.

If the application is summarily rejected, a rejection notice is issued to the submitter’s myLTSA inbox. The rejection notice identifies the reason(s) for rejection. If the application successfully passes preliminary inspection, the application is received, and the registrar assigns the date and time of its receipt and application number pursuant to s. 153 of the Land Title Act. A copy of the application with these registration details is delivered to the submitter’s myLTSA inbox.

See the Preliminary Review Process help page at LTSA Help: https://help.ltsa.ca/myltsa-enterprise/preliminary-review-process.

Priority of Examination and Registration

Under the authority of s. 168(4), Caveats and Certificates of Pending Litigation receive priority of examination and registration. Injunctions receive priority of examination and registration, as they are treated in the same manner as a Caveat, and Securities Act Charges and Property Freezing Orders receive priority of examination and registration, as they are treated in the same manner as a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

Expropriation applications receive priority of examination and registration to restrict further dealings in land in accordance with the provincial and federal Expropriation Acts. Provisional Title applications receive priority of examination and registration, as a lost or destroyed Duplicate Indefeasible Title prevents the registration of a transfer, mortgage, and right to purchase.

Effect of Registration

See the following list of preliminary applications and the corresponding statutory references to determine the effect of registration:

• Caveat (Land Title Act, s. 288)
• Certificate of Pending Litigation (Land Title Act, ss. 216 and 217)
• Expropriation (see provincial and federal Expropriation Acts)
• Injunction (Land Title Act, ss. 284(4) and 288)
• Securities Act Charge (Securities Act, s. 164.18(5) and Land Title Act, ss. 216 and 217)

Time of Registration

See s. 22 of the Act regarding the operation of an instrument from the time of registration.

Registration Effective from Time of Application

See s. 37 of the Act, which provides that every registered instrument or application “is deemed to have been registered and to have become operative … as of the date and time when the application was received by the registrar”.

Time of Application

See s. 153 of the Act regarding the registrar’s obligation to stamp or write the day and hour of an application’s receipt on the instrument and the effect of the day and hour stamped or written on such an instrument.

CROSS REFERENCES AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Original Documents

Electronic Submissions

See ss. 168.3 and 168.41 of the Act, which provide that an instrument submitted electronically is the original and must reflect all the same information found on the true copy of the electronic form except the actual signature. Supporting documents must be images of the originals.

Hardcopy Submissions

Hardcopy submissions are only accepted under the exemptions set out in E-filing Directions at ltsa.ca, or on an exception basis as permitted by the registrar in accordance with those Directions.

See s. 147 of the Act, which provides that an instrument tendered for registration or deposit must be the original.

Secondary Sources

See Di Castri, Registration of Title to Land, vol. 1, para. 229.

CASE LAW

Common Law Presumptions regarding Alterations

Notes on Case Law: The following case annotations are a sample of cases that addresses the presumptions arising at common law in relation to the alteration of documents.

There is a presumption at common law that an alteration appearing in a document was made before execution of the document. Nevertheless, the party who produces a written agreement which appears to have a material alteration bears the onus of explaining the alteration (Roan v. Quinn, 1922 CanLII 429 (AB CA)).

If a party fails to fulfil the onus of explaining a material alteration, the presumption that the alteration was made before execution is rebutted. Also, courts do not presume that the obligee (the person to whom another party to a contract owes a favour) consented to the alterations. The deed becomes void. Because fraud forms the basis of the common law rules here, accidental or honest alterations made mistakenly by the obligee are excluded from these rules (Roman Hotels Ltd. v. Desrochers Hotels Ltd., 1976 CanLII 987 (SK CA)).