|
Real Property - Land Titles - Appeals. World Financial Solutions Inc. v. 2573138 Ontario Ltd.
In World Financial Solutions Inc. v. 2573138 Ontario Ltd. (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an appeal route jurisdiction issue under the Land Titles Act [s.27], here where the court raised it themselves:[1] The motion judge granted the respondent 2868395 Ontario Limited’s motion and made an order directing the Registrar of the Land Registry Office to delete a specific instrument. That instrument registered the appellants’ third-party claim on title to specific properties located in Harcourt, Ontario.
[2] Prior to this hearing, the court raised with the parties whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Having heard submissions from the parties, we have concluded that we do not have jurisdiction.
[3] The motion was brought under the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5. Section 27 of that Act reads:Any person affected by an order made under this Act by a judge of the court may appeal to the Divisional Court within 30 days of the date of the decision and, subject to the rules, in like manner as in the case of other appeals to that court. [4] This section was considered by this court in CIBC Mortgages Inc. (c.o.b. Firstline Mortgages) v. Computershare Trust Co. of Canada, 2015 ONCA 846, 342 O.A.C. 49. In particular, the court considered the argument that s. 27 only applied to orders made by the Director of Land Registration or the Director of Titles under s. 26, after a hearing. This court rejected that argument. The court said, at para. 8:Section 24 and the other provisions referred to above specifically contemplate applications coming directly to a Superior Court judge. The heading "Further appeal" fails to reflect that aspect of the statutory scheme and cannot deprive s. 27 of its ordinary meaning that "any person affected by an order made under this Act" (emphasis added) has an appeal to the Divisional Court. [5] It is our view that the decision in CIBC Mortgages is dispositive of the jurisdiction issue. Any appeal from the order of the motion judge lies to the Divisional Court, not to this court.
[6] The appeal is quashed. Since the jurisdiction issue was raised by the court, not by the parties, we make no order as to costs.
|
