Little v. Trustees of the IWA

Little v. Trustees of the IWA

There is no admissible evidence of a validly executed instrument transferring Lot 18; statutory and equitable remedies invoked by the petitioners (s.86 Court Enforcement Act, s.34 Land Titles Act, Rule 10) presuppose such an instrument and therefore do not assist; because there are significant and material contested facts (including mortgage discharge documents identifying only Lot 17), the appropriate remedy is to order a trial and require pleadings to frame the issues.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1689
Parties
Petitioner: Randal Little; Petitioner: Patricia Little; Respondent: Brian Allen Botley; Respondent: Trustees of the IWA - Forest Industry Pension Plan; Respondent: Trustees of the IWA - Forest Industry Ltd. Plan
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Petition Concerning Vesting and Declaration of Title Under Court Enforcement Act and Land Titles Act / Application Heard; Order for Trial Pursuant to Rule 52(11)(d)
Outcome
Application for declaration and vesting denied at this stage; proceeding ordered to trial pursuant to Rule 52(11)(d).
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Vesting of Land, Registration of Judgment, Priority of Charges, Mistake, Validly Executed Instrument
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Land Registration Enforcement of Judgments Contract Law Declaration of Title Vesting of Land +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randal Little

Petitioner

Patricia Little

Petitioner

Brian Allen Botley

Respondent

Trustees of the IWA - Forest Industry Pension Plan

Respondent

Trustees of the IWA - Forest Industry Ltd. Plan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Concerning Vesting and Declaration of Title Under Court Enforcement Act and Land Titles Act / Application Heard; Order for Trial Pursuant to Rule 52(11)(d)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners are entitled to a declaration and vesting of title to Lot 18
  2. 2 Whether s.86 of the Court Enforcement Act permits cancellation of the registered judgment and transfer of Lot 18
  3. 3 Whether there is a validly executed instrument evidencing transfer of Lot 18

Ratio Decidendi

There is no admissible evidence of a validly executed instrument transferring Lot 18; statutory and equitable remedies invoked by the petitioners (s.86 Court Enforcement Act, s.34 Land Titles Act, Rule 10) presuppose such an instrument and therefore do not assist; because there are significant and material contested facts (including mortgage discharge documents identifying only Lot 17), the appropriate remedy is to order a trial and require pleadings to frame the issues.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration and vesting denied at this stage; proceeding ordered to trial pursuant to Rule 52(11)(d).

Orders

  • Proceeding ordered to trial pursuant to Rule 52(11)(d).
  • Pleadings to be filed framing the issues identified on this application.