A judgment creditor who registers a judgment against your property in British Columbia can apply to the BC Supreme Court to force a sale of the land under the Court Order Enforcement Act. The creditor’s right to sell, however, extends only to the extent of the judgment debtor’s interest in the property.
In March 2026, the BC Supreme Court dismissed a creditor’s application to force the sale of a $2.5-million Vancouver home after finding the judgment debtor, who was also the registered owner, held title only as a bare trustee with no beneficial interest. The decision in Krisinger v. Liu, 2026 BCSC 892, confirmed that a judgment lien under s. 86(3) of the Court Order Enforcement Act attaches only “to the extent of [the debtor’s] beneficial interest in the land.” When that beneficial interest is zero, the creditor has nothing to seize.
How Does a Creditor Force the Sale of Your House in BC?
The Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 78 establishes a three-step process for judgment creditors to force the sale of land in British Columbia: a show cause hearing, a reference to the registrar, and a confirmation hearing.
The process begins when a judgment creditor registers a judgment against title to the debtor’s land at the Land Title Office. Section 86(3) of the Court Order Enforcement Act creates a lien and charge on the land from the date of registration. The judgment creditor then applies under s. 92 for a determination that the property is liable to be sold to satisfy the debt.
The three-step process operates as follows. Step one is the show cause hearing under s. 92, where the court determines whether the land, or the judgment debtor’s interest in the land, is liable for satisfaction of the judgment. Step two is a reference to a district registrar under s. 94, where the registrar examines what the debtor’s interest in the property actually consists of. Step three is a confirmation hearing under s. 96, where the court decides when and how the property will be sold. A creditor must pass through each stage before the court will order a forced sale.
What Happens at a Show Cause Hearing Under Section 92?
The show cause hearing determines whether the property is liable to be sold for satisfaction of the judgment. The judgment debtor bears the burden of demonstrating cause why the land, or the debtor’s interest in it, is not liable for the satisfaction of the debt.
Many creditors treat the show cause hearing as a rubber-stamp proceeding. The standard argument is narrow: the land sits in the right district, a judgment is registered against title, and the creditor holds a registered interest. On that basis alone, creditors ask the court to move straight to the registrar’s hearing and eventual sale.
Section 93 of the Court Order Enforcement Act grants the court broader authority. The statute directs the court to use summary proceedings, trial of an issue, or inquiry before an officer “for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the matters in question, and whether the land, or the interest in it of the judgment debtor, is liable for the satisfaction of the judgment.” The BC Court of Appeal confirmed this scope in Denman Island Local Trust Committee v. Ellis, 2015 BCCA 401, describing the court’s task at a show cause hearing as determining “whether the land in question, or the interest of the judgment debtor, is liable for satisfaction of the judgment.”
This language opens the door to resolving the beneficial interest question at the very first step, rather than waiting for the registrar’s hearing. When a judgment debtor holds title as a bare trustee with no beneficial interest in the property, the show cause hearing is where that determination belongs.
How a Bare Trust Defence Protected a $2.5M Vancouver Home from Forced Sale
In Krisinger v. Liu, 2026 BCSC 892, Raymond Jin of ATAC LAW successfully argued that the registered owner of a Vancouver property held title only as a bare trustee, persuading the court to dismiss the creditor’s forced sale application at the show cause stage.
Show cause hearings under the Court Order Enforcement Act are widely treated as rubber-stamp proceedings: the creditor registers a judgment on title and the court moves automatically toward a sale. Raymond Jin ended this one at the very first step.
Acting for the judgment debtor, Raymond Jin argued that the registered owner held title only as a bare trustee with no beneficial interest in the property. The creditor, a former tenant who had obtained a $48,820 monetary order from the Residential Tenancy Branch and registered it against a property on West 18th Avenue in Vancouver, took the position that registration on title was sufficient to trigger a forced sale. Raymond Jin successfully reframed the show cause hearing as the correct stage to resolve the beneficial interest question, rather than deferring it to a later registrar’s hearing, and put before the court the evidence needed to decide it that day.
The Court found two independent trust interests in favour of Raymond Jin’s client: a resulting trust arising from the son’s payment of the full $2,500,000 purchase price, and an express trust established by a written “Family Agreement for Property Management and Succession” under which the registered owner agreed to hold and transfer title to her daughter, who had funded $1.1 million in redevelopment costs. Justice Elwood dismissed the application in its entirety under s. 86(3) of the Act, finding the judgment lien attached only to the debtor’s beneficial interest, which was nil. A $2.5-million Vancouver family home was protected from forced sale before the case ever reached a registrar. The full reasons are published as Krisinger v. Liu, 2026 BCSC 892.
What Is a Resulting Trust and Why Does It Block Judgment Enforcement?
A resulting trust arises when one person pays the purchase price for property but title is registered in another person’s name. The law presumes the title holder holds the property in trust for the person who paid, unless evidence rebuts that presumption.
The BC Supreme Court outlined two ways the presumption of indefeasibility of registered title under the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250 can be rebutted. The first is a resulting trust, which arises where no value is given for the legal interest. The second is an agreement between the parties that is contrary to the registered title. The BC Court of Appeal confirmed this framework in Suen v. Suen, 2013 BCCA 313 at para. 34.
A resulting trust blocks judgment enforcement because of the principle established in Martin Commercial Fueling Inc. v. Virtanen (1993), 84 B.C.L.R. (2d) 289: “A judgment creditor can only attach the interest that exists in the judgment debtor; he can stand in no better position with respect to the land than does the judgment debtor.” When the judgment debtor holds land as a bare trustee, the debtor’s beneficial interest is nil. Section 86(3) of the Court Order Enforcement Act limits the judgment lien to the debtor’s beneficial interest. A creditor cannot force the sale of property in which the judgment debtor holds zero beneficial interest, regardless of what the certificate of title shows.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a judgment creditor force the sale of a house held in trust in British Columbia?
A judgment creditor cannot force the sale of property in which the judgment debtor holds no beneficial interest. Under s. 86(3) of the Court Order Enforcement Act, a judgment lien attaches only to the debtor’s beneficial interest in the land. If the debtor holds title as a bare trustee, the beneficial interest is zero and the creditor has no claim against the property.
What is the difference between a resulting trust and an express trust in BC property law?
A resulting trust arises by operation of law when one person pays the purchase price for property but title is placed in another person’s name. An express trust is created by a written agreement between the parties declaring that the title holder holds the property for the benefit of another person. Both types of trust rebut the presumption of indefeasible title and establish that the registered owner is a trustee, not the beneficial owner.
What evidence do I need to stop a forced sale of my property at a show cause hearing?
To oppose a forced sale at the show cause hearing stage, a judgment debtor needs documentary evidence proving the absence of beneficial interest. This includes records of who funded the purchase price (bank transfers, remittance slips), any written trust agreement or family agreement, and evidence showing the debtor made no financial contribution to the purchase or development of the property.
Does registering a judgment on title automatically mean the property will be sold?
Registering a judgment on title does not guarantee a forced sale. Registration creates a lien, but the creditor must still pass through the three-step process under the Court Order Enforcement Act: a show cause hearing, a reference to the registrar, and a confirmation hearing. The judgment debtor can challenge the sale at any stage, and the court can dismiss the application if the debtor proves the property is not liable for satisfaction of the debt.
Raymond Jin at ATAC LAW represents judgment debtors facing forced property sale applications in the BC Supreme Court. If a judgment has been registered against your property, contact ATAC LAW to discuss the options available in your situation.