Background: The dispute centers around a joint venture to purchase, develop, and sell properties, with Baldev Singh Hans filing a Notice of Civil Claim against Aditya Sood and 1139314 B.C. Ltd., asserting a joint venture agreement breach. Hans also lodged a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against properties that were due to be sold by Sood and his company.

Initial Proceedings (2018): Sood sought to cancel the CPL, citing hardship and the need to post $800,000 as security, which was done. The master ordered the CPL's cancellation based on this payment, not directly addressing if the CPL initially complied with s. 215 of the Land Title Act, which relates to a clear interest in land.

Subsequent Legal Challenge (2021): Years later, Sood argued that the CPL was never compliant with s. 215 and that the security should be released back to them. This application was dismissed on the grounds that they should have appealed the master’s original decision.

Appeal Outcome: The Court of Appeal dismissed Sood's appeal, upholding that the initial application to cancel the CPL should have included all arguments regarding s. 215 compliance. The court noted that introducing these arguments years later constituted a collateral attack on the original order.

Legal Implications: The decision emphasizes the importance of addressing all relevant legal arguments in initial proceedings and the challenges of altering the basis of a court order after it has been finalized without an appeal.