In 2015, the Lightfoots purchased two abutting properties, 8408 and 8410, that were not registered on a plan of subdivision. In December of 2016, the Lightfoots granted CIBC a mortgage in 8408. In 2019, 8410 was transferred to Mr. Lightfoot’s name alone and then into his name and his mother’s name, all of which was done without a severance.
CIBC took the position that since both properties were not registered on a plan of subdivision, the two parcels would have merged (becoming one single property) pursuant to s. 50 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Therefore, both properties would be subject to the mortgage, and the transfers of 8410 ought to be null and void. Justice Michael R. Gibson of the Superior Court of Justice agreed with CIBC and declared the transfers null and void. Mr. Lightfoot appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Mr. Lightfoot submitted that the language of the register at the time the properties were first registered under the Land Titles Act specifically excluded them from the operation of ss. 50 and 50.1 of the Planning Act. Section 44(1) of the Land Titles Act allows for properties to be excluded from the operation of ss. 50 and 50.1 as long as it is expressly excluded on the register.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario clarified that the language on the registers, which excluded ss. 50 and 50.1 of the Planning Act, was to operate solely at the time the Government of Ontario was converting land from the Registry System to the Land Titles System and registering the titles as “Land Titles Conversion Qualified,” or “LTCQ.” However, once a property was registered under the Land Titles System, from that point on, it was subject to all sections of the Planning Act, including ss. 50 and 50.1. Therefore, two abutting properties that were already registered in the Land Titles System would still merge under s. 50 of the Planning Act even with the language relied on by Mr. Lightfoot.
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed (see 2025 CanLII 65853).