A Certificate of Pending Litigation (“CPL”) is a charge on a property that can secure a litigant’s interest in a property, but in some cases the subject property owners can have the charge removed
Vancouver, BC -- (ReleaseWire) -- 07/25/2018 --As a group of litigation lawyers in Vancouver, the team at Kushner Law typically advises that one of most useful tools litigants have to secure potential proceeds in a successful estate litigation lawsuit is the use of certificates of pending litigation. A Certificate of Pending Litigation ("CPL") is a charge on a property that works to secure a litigant's interest in a property. It stops an owner from either selling or refinancing the subject property. However, in some circumstances, property owners can bring in an application to have the charge removed. For more, go to: http://www.kushnerlaw.ca/cancelling-a-certificate-of-pending-litigation/
The preliminary test that the Courts use to determine whether a CPL should be removed was set out in the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, Youyi Group Holdings (Canada) Ltd. v. Brentwood Lanes Canada Ltd., 2014 BCCA 388 (CanLII):
As a preliminary matter the applicant must show that it is experiencing or likely to experience "hardship and inconvenience" as a result of the registration of the CPL. It appears that the degree of hardship required is the subject of disagreement in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
 While some judges have proceeded on the basis that the hardship need not be "significant" (see, e.g., Enigma Investments Corp. v. Henderson Land Holdings (Canada) Ltd. 2007 BCSC 1379 (CanLII), and 0966349 B.C. Ltd. v. Shell Canada Limited, Reasons dated February 28, 2014, New Westminster Docket S151234), others have required "severe suffering" (see, e.g., the lower court decision in Liquor Barn Income Fund v. Mather 2009 BCSC 1092 (CanLII), at para. 7.) The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (6th ed., 2007) defines "hardship" to mean "the quality of being hard to bear" or "severe suffering or privation"; "significant" to mean "important, notable; consequential"; and "insignificant" to mean "of no importance; trivial, trifling" or "meaningless". To the extent that these or other decisions of the trial court suggest that "hardship" in s. 256(1) may be met by proof of hardship that is "insignificant" or "not significant", I would disagree. I doubt that the Legislature intended the threshold under s.256 to be surmounted by proof of hardship that is only "trifling". On the other hand, I agree that a court should not be "exacting" in its analysis of hardship and inconvenience.
If a property under your ownership is subject to a certificate of pending litigation or for advice and counselling on estate litigation, a lawyer can provide the best options for pursuing a course of action. Call 604-629-0432 or contact the Kushner Law Group today to schedule a consultation.
About The Kushner Law Group
The Kushner Law Group was founded on the principle that a small law firm should be able to offer the same level of legal advice as a big firm at an affordable cost. A unique combination of legal experience and creativity allows the professionals at Kushner to come up with creative and practical solutions for a variety of legal problems.
For additional information, please visit http://kushnerlaw.ca/ or call 604-629-0432.
Kushner Law Group
Phone 604-629-0432 Fax 604-689-4451
Company website: http://kushnerlaw.ca/>
1008 Beach Ave #105