Skip to main content

In This Volume

54 (1) A Crown grant issued after April 5, 1968 for land sold or for the issue of which provision is made under this Act or any other Act, general or special, must, on its issue, be transmitted to the proper land title office for registration.

  • (2) If the registrar is satisfied that the boundaries of the land are sufficiently defined by the description, the registrar must
  • (a) register the title granted in the register, subject to the provisions of the grant, in the name of the grantee, without application for registration, and
  • (b) give notice of the registration to the grantee.
  • (3) [Repealed].
  • (4) A Crown grant issued before April 6, 1968 is registrable under the law in force immediately before that date, but the fees for registration are those currently applicable and, on registration, the grantee is entitled to become the registered owner of the indefeasible title to the land.

1979-214-51; 1982-60-103, proclaimed effective August 1, 1983; 1986-15-5, effective August 26, 1986 (B.C. Reg. 193/86); 2004-66-56, effective January 20, 2005 (B.C. Reg. 16/2005).

REGULATIONS, FEES, AND FORMS

Consolidation of Granted Land with Other Land

See ss. 1 and 2 of the Land Act Regulation, B.C. Reg. 315/76, which provide:

  • 1 Upon the issuance of a Crown grant under section 48 of the Land Act, the minister [now the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development] may require the grantee to enter into a covenant that he and his successors in title will not dispose of the land granted separately from another designated parcel already owned by the grantee.
  • 2 Upon receipt by a registrar of title under section 54 of the Land Actof a Crown grant containing a covenant referred to in section 1 hereof, he shall, subject to section 158 of the Land Title Act
  • (a) register title for the Crown granted land as provided for in section 54(2)(a) of the Land Act, and
  • (b) endorse on the title to the land granted, and the designated parcel, a memorandum of the covenant.

Application for Registration of Crown Grant

Electronic Submissions

For electronic submissions, the director has approved the use of the electronic Form 17, Surveyor General Form, to be completed and electronically signed exclusively by the Surveyor General.

A Crown grant is in the class of supporting documents designated by the director for electronic filing.

Any charges contained or reserved in the Crown Grant are submitted as additional applications in the same form as the Crown grant.

Hardcopy Submissions

Hardcopy submissions are only accepted under the exemptions set out in the Director’s E-filing Directions.

Section 54 dispenses with the requirement to make an application for Crown grants issued after April 1, 1968. With the exception of Crown grants delivered to land title offices directly by the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, the registrar requires a Form 17 application.

PRACTICE

Registration of Crown Grant

Section 54 of the Act directs the registrar to register an indefeasible title in consequence of a Crown grant. This is the only instance where the registrar is not under a duty to verify that a good safe holding and marketable title exists. However, where the registrar perceives a defect in a description, the registrar refers the issue to the Surveyor General.

CROSS REFERENCES AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Description in Crown Grant

See s. 60 of the Land Title Act, which provides:

  • 60 Registration of the title to land must, in the first instance, be according to the description of the land shown
  • (a) in the Crown grant, or
  • (b) if there is no Crown grant, in another instrument that is satisfactory to the registrar.

Registration of Title to Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company Land

See s. 61 of the Land Title Act.

Secondary Sources

See Di Castri, Registration of Title to Land, vol. 1, para. 268.

CASE LAW

Statutory Duty of Crown

A company entered into an agreement to sell Crown lands to a third party, with the conveyance to take place on December 31, 1976. The company was not entitled to the Crown grants until November 1976. In that month, the president of the company attended at the Crown grant unit in Victoria to discuss the grants with C, who was in charge of the unit. The company president told C that it was imperative that the Crown grants be delivered to and registered in the Prince George land title office by December 31, 1976. He again attended the unit on December 29, 1976 and spoke to C. The unit issued the Crown grants that day and they were ready for registration. C told the company president that government policy would not permit him to take the grants to the land title office by airplane and that the grants would have to be either mailed by registered mail or delivered by courier. The company president asked that the latter be done and C made arrangements to have a commercial courier deliver the Crown grants. They did not arrive at the land title office until January 4, 1977. The third party refused to complete the transaction with the company. The company sued the Crown and the courier company. Section 54 contains no reference to any time limit for the transmission of a Crown grant or for the registration of the title. Following issuance, the Crown did cause the grants to be transmitted to the proper land title office in proper form for their registration. There was no unreasonable delay in the issuance of the Crown grants and it was not unreasonable for the Crown to arrange to have the Crown grants transmitted by courier. The Crown properly fulfilled its duty to the plaintiff under s. 54, and its duty did not go beyond that statutory duty. C did not accept the responsibility of having the Crown grants transmitted and registered by December 31, 1976. C did not make any definite promises, but only said that she would do her best. She did exactly that (Hofstrand Farms Ltd. v. British Columbia, 1980 CanLII 669 (BC SC), appeal allowed on other grounds 1982 CanLII 419 (BC CA)). On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court considered the question of the courier’s liability, finding that it was not liable. Crown liability was not considered by the court ([1986] 1 SCR 228, 1986 CanLII 51 (SCC)).