Key Issues:

• Whether the chambers judge erred in canceling a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against the respondent’s property.
• Whether a purchaser’s lien constitutes an interest in land sufficient to support a CPL under s. 215 of the Land Title Act.

Background:

• 1332404 B.C. Ltd. (Appellant) entered into a contract to purchase subdivided lots from 1266685 B.C. Ltd. (Respondent) and paid a deposit directly to the seller.
• The appellant sought rescission and return of the deposit, alleging material changes to the lot sizes.
• The chambers judge found the purchaser’s lien claim inconsistent with the primary remedy of rescission and ruled the CPL was improperly registered under s. 215, canceling it.

Court of Appeal Decision:

Appeal Allowed. CPL Reinstated.

• A purchaser’s lien is a recognized equitable interest in land that arises when a deposit is paid directly to the vendor.
• S. 215 only requires that pleadings support a claim to an interest in land, not that the claim is valid on the merits.
• The chambers judge erred by assessing the substance of the claim rather than whether the pleadings supported an interest in land.
• Alternative remedies (rescission and a lien) are not inherently inconsistent; the lien provides security for deposit recovery.

Outcome:

The CPL is reinstated, and the case is referred back to the Supreme Court for further consideration of other CPL cancellation grounds.

The decision did not specify a monetary award or damages.