The Supreme Court of British Columbia allowed a property owner to cancel a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) upon providing $90,000 in security, despite having rejected an earlier cancellation application. A matured mortgage, enforcement pressure and a proposed sale had materially changed the property’s circumstances.
For developers, an unsuccessful CPL application is not necessarily the end of the matter. Changed circumstances may establish the hardship needed for cancellation even where the claimant has an arguable interest in land.
Why the Court Reconsidered the CPL
In 0894045 B.C. Ltd. v. 1294778 B.C. Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1769, the CPL was connected to a dispute involving a $500,000 assignment fee. The first effort to remove it had failed. Subsequently, the property’s mortgage matured and faced enforcement, refinancing was unavailable while the CPL remained registered, and a proposed sale required its cancellation.
Under sections 256 and 257 of the Land Title Act, the Court may cancel a CPL where its registration causes, or is likely to cause, hardship and inconvenience, provided the statutory requirements are met and adequate security can protect the claimant.
The Court accepted that the renewed application depended on materially different circumstances, rather than a second attempt to argue the same facts. A separate CPL was also registered against the property, but that did not defeat the application. The owner needed to show that the challenged CPL contributed directly to the hardship, not that it was the property’s only financing or sale obstacle.
Why $90,000 in Security Was Sufficient
The plaintiff sought approximately $750,000 in monetary relief and asserted a constructive trust involving the $500,000 assignment fee. For this application, the Court considered the constructive trust claim to have a significant likelihood of success, without finally deciding the merits.
The question of security was different. Section 257(3) permits the Court to consider the claimant’s prospects and the value of the claimed interest. Declining property values meant the estimated value of the proprietary interest was approximately $90,000, even though the monetary claim was much larger.
The Court authorized cancellation upon provision of that amount. The security was not required to equal the total damages sought because the CPL protected an asserted interest in land, not every financial claim in the lawsuit.
What Owners and Claimants Should Understand
A renewed CPL application should identify changes supported by evidence: mortgage maturity, actual enforcement risk, failed refinancing or sale conditions requiring a clear title. The existence of other registrations does not automatically eliminate hardship caused by the particular CPL.
Claimants should distinguish the amount claimed in a lawsuit from the value of the proprietary interest protected by a CPL. A plausible interest in land can still be protected by security rather than continued registration.
This is also different from cancellation of a CPL that was invalid from the outset because the pleadings disclosed no interest in land. Here, the claimed constructive trust remained potentially viable; changed hardship and adequate security justified removing the registration.
