If you broke your own contractual terms and took the risk, why or how can you rely on equity to save you? But, when there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevalls. The slight variation in the operation of the contract may involve extended time to pay but it does not make the contract invalid but amended in the usual course of business and daily activities. Loan amounts can be increased or lowered also. This short review was written by Warren A. Lyon, a Merit Listed Jag Officer( Applicant).

  

If you broke your own contractual terms and took the risk, why or how can you rely on equity to save you?  But, when there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevalls. The slight variation in the operation of the contract may involve extended time to pay but it does not make the contract invalid but amended in the usual course of business and daily activities.  Loan amounts can be increased or lowered also.     

This short review was written by Warren A. Lyon, a Merit Listed Jag Officer( Applicant).

39164

625536 B.C. Ltd. v. Forjay Management Ltd., et al.

(B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords

Mortgages - Mortgages — Priorities — Whether under a Canadian system of land title registration, a mortgagee can obtain priority for advances made in excess of the specific principal amount stated on the face of the registered mortgage form?.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Lands were subject to a First Mortgage, a Second Mortgage and a Third Mortgage. The lender holding the Third Mortgage did not give written notice of registration of its Third Mortgage to the registered owners of the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage. Advances were made under the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage exceeding the Principal declared in Clause 5(a) of each mortgage’s Form B. The land owner entered receivership. The holder of the Third Mortgage took a position that advances under the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage in excess of the principles stated in their Form B’s were not secured and could not take priority over its loan advances. The parties applied for a declaration in part clarifying the priorities of their mortgages, the amounts secured, and the rates of interest payable on their advances. The Supreme Court of British Columbia in part found and declared that the First Mortgage, the Second Mortgage and the Third Mortgage rank respectively in priority, inclusive of advances exceeding the amounts declared as principal in Clause 5(a) of the First Mortgage and the Second Mortgage. The Court of Appeal in part dismissed an appeal from this finding.