Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>
Sender:
Lionel Smith
Date:
Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:33:16
Re:
new subrogation cases

 

Greetings all,

Professor Albert Oosterhoff of the Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario has written to tell me about three important new cases on subrogation from the Ontario Court of Appeal. A synopsis of his report:

Three cases on subrogation were released on Aug. 11 by the Ont. C.A. Please feel free to pass the information on to Restitution discussion group. The three appeals (from different judges) were heard together by the same panel (Brooke, Osborne and Austin JJ.A.). All concern (1) claims by a mortgagee to be subrogated to the rights of a former mortgagee whose mortgage was discharged with moneys from the mew mortgage; and (2) negligence by the mortgagee's solicitor who failed to notice an intervening registration. The cases are on QuickLaw:

Midland Mortgage Corp. v. 784401 Ontario Ltd., [1997] OJ No. 3257
Mutual Trust Co. v. Creditview Estate Homes Ltd., [1997] OJ No. 3258
Armatage Motors Ltd. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada. [1997] OJ No. 3259

In the first case the judge of first instance dismissed the mortgagee's claim because it was inconsistent with the Land Titles Act (the correct view in my opinion, but long since discredited by the Supreme Court of Canada, which did not understand the theoretical basis of the Act). The Court of Appeal reversed.

The second case involved an intervening registration of a certificate of pending litigation. Both courts upheld the mortgagee's claim.

The third case involved a second mortgage. The judge of first instance held that the second mortgagee had priority over the first and disallowed the subrogation claim. The majority in the Court of Appeal agreed, holding that subrogation is a discretionary remedy and should be refused if the second mortgagee should suffer injury and if the mortgagee has another remedy, viz., an action against the solicitor. Brooke J.A., dissented.

Professor Oosterhoff has just edited the second and third cases for publication in the the DLRs. The first is sufficiently similar that it won't be reported in the DLRs.

Many thanks to Professor Oosterhoff for this update.

 

Lionel


<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !