The following looseleaf texts have been updated:
REGISTRATION OF TITLE TO LAND
Release No. 9, September 2026
What's New in This Update
This release updates the commentary and caselaw in Chapter 5 (Functions of the Registrar), Chapter 6 (Land Descriptions and Registered and Deposited Plans of Survey), Chapter 12 (Leases), Chapter 13 (Mortgages), Chapter 15 (Lis Pendens), Chapter 16 (Transmission) and Chapter 18 (Statutory Exceptions to Indefeasibility of Title).
Highlights
LEASES - TERMINATION OF LEASE — Appeal from arbitration award of compensation to tenant pursuant to s. 51 of Residential Tenancy Act; landlord terminated respondent’s tenancy to provide vacant possession to buyers exercising option to purchase and intending to renovate and occupy unit; no error concluding standard purchase and sale agreement not required to trigger s. 51 as option agreement valid instrument which also confers right to specific performance; buyer’s extensive renovations unduly delayed occupancy for months and respondent (former) tenant challenged validity of eviction notice which stated purpose as buyer occupation of unit without any mention of renovations; compensation not available pursuant to ss. 51(2) if landlord proves (1) stated purpose for eviction fulfilled within reasonable time and (2) unit used for stated purpose for at least 12 months; arbitrator erred by awarding damages without consideration of whether landlord satisfied ss. 51(2) and solely based on alleged defect in notice; further, arbitrator
ignored tenant’s acceptance of notice without objection or complaint about stated purpose which tenant relies on as defect; ss. 51(3) expressly
confers discretion to deny compensation based on “extenuating circumstances”; arbitrator erred by concluding repeated delays as a result of
buyer’s renovations did not qualify as “extenuating circumstances” and stated purpose of buyer occupancy not fulfilled within reasonable time;
appeal allowed: Sull v. Trevitt, 2026 BCCA 163 (B.C. C.A.).
LEASES — QUIET ENJOYMENT -— Appeal from order tenant entitled to treat lease as ended due to Landlord’s fundamental breach; appellant
landlord purchased of commercial building and inherited respondent tenant; appellant attempted to negotiate with tenant to end tenancy
early to facilitate moving his business onto property; when negotiations did not lead to termination agreement, appellant blocked tenant’s access
to loading dock; use of property for warehousing flowers necessitated perishable flower deliveries from large trucks; based on plain language
of lease and commercial reasonableness, parties’ objectively intended tenant to have loading dock access; absurd for parties to include term in
lease requiring enlargement of loading bay door if tenant not entitled to access loading bay; blocking access denied tenant of substantially all
benefit of lease agreement and is repudiatory breach; tenant, as innocent party, entitled to treat lease as over and pursue damages;
temporary restoration of access via “without prejudice” consent order does not extinguish tenant’s right to treat agreement as at an end; appeal
dismissed: Convocation Flowers Incorporated v. Anisa Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONCA 145 (Ont. C.A.).
LIS PENDENS - THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS — Appeal by mortgagee from refusal to discharge certificate of pending litigation
(CPL) filed by party in another action; removal of CPL necessary to facilitate completion of sale of property by mortgagee; chamber’s judge
erred by concluding Court not empowered to remove validly registered CPL solely on basis of interference with exercise of power of sale process
by mortgagee; Mortgages Act and Land Title Act applicable to exercise of power of sale; no operative conflict between power of sale provisions
of these statutes and exercise of power to discharge CPL pursuant to Courts of Justice Act; no language supporting requirement applicant
must be party to proceeding in which CPL registered to be entitled to discharge; authorities support discretion to discharge CPL which ranks
behind interest of mortgagee to give effect to requirement under LTA to transfer good title to purchaser buying pursuant to power of sale; appeal
allowed and matter remitted for reconsideration: MCAN Home Mortgage Corporation v. Broad, 2026 ONCA 217 (Ont. C.A.).
MANITOBA KING’S BENCH RULES ANNOTATED
Release No. 3, September 2026
What's New in This Update
In this release, the author has updated Chapter 3 (Annotations).
Highlights
Dismissal for Long Delay - Significant Advancement
The service of a supplemental affidavit of documents was not a significant advancement in this action. The supplemental affidavit of documents was a correction to a deficient earlier step taken in the litigation when the original affidavit of documents was served without disclosing all relevant documents in the plaintiff’s possession, control or power, as is required.
Westland Construction Ltd. v. 4732449 Manitoba Ltd. carrying on business as Con-Restor Technologies, 2026 MBKB 96, 2026 CarswellMan 247 (Man. K.B.), per Berthaudin Associate J.
Striking Out or Expunging Documents - Motion to Strike - Self- Represented Litigant and Gladue Factors
A balanced approach is required when considering a plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant. The Court went on to consider whether the Gladue factors ought to be considered and held:
84 While the trauma endured by indigenous individuals, families, communities and culture through colonization, discrimination, government policy and other societal wrongs is certainly recognized and not being diminished, and even though I am receptive to consideration of Gladue factors, the difficulty for the plaintiffs in this case is that [the plaintiff] never did explain how, or in what manner, the application of Gladue factors would have an impact for the Plaintiffs in connection with their pleadings or in reply to the issues raised by the Motion.
...
86 Ultimately, a general assertion that Gladue factors ought to be considered, without evidence or submissions as to the application and impact upon this case, is of no constructive benefit to the Plaintiffs in response to the motion.
Henry et al v. Attorney General of Canada et al., 2026 MBKB 6, 2026 CarswellMan 5 (Man. K.B.), per Patterson Associate J.
Child protection law in Canada. 2nd edition
Release No. 7, September 2026
This release features updates to Chapter 3 (Commencing the Protection Application), Chapter 4 (Motions), Chapter 6 (Protection Application—Dispositions), Chapter 7 (Variation and Status Review Applications), Chapter 9 (Summary Proceedings and Agreements) and Chapter 11 (Appeals).
Highlights
Motions — Placement of Child Pending Protection Hearing — The appeal court agreed that nothing in s. 94 of the Act allowed the court to impose terms on the Society relating where a child resides, however, that did not end the analysis as the section states that an order may contain provisions regarding any person’s right of access to the child on such terms that the court considers appropriate. The motions judge found that moving the child to Ottawa would impede family reunification and essentially set up reintegration to fail. This was a finding she was entitled to make. The term in question was clearly ancillary to the access order. It did not direct the placement of the child. The order engaged the best interests factors in the Act, the term simply recognized the child’s personal circumstances, the importance of regular and increased access to his family and was consistent with the child’s
best interests. The distance restriction was reasonable and necessary for the ordered access to occur. That decision is entitled to deference.
There was no palpable or overriding error. The appeal was dismissed: Linck Child, Youth and Family Supports v. S.B., 2025 CarswellOnt 22778, 2025 ONSC 705.
Motions — Adoption —A foster mother sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Minister from moving a four-year-old child, whom
she had fostered since birth, to a prospective adoptive home in Nova Scotia while her judicial review of the Minister’s rejection of her adoption
application was pending. The court found a serious issue to be tried, noting that the legislation does not give biological siblings priority
over other sibling relationships and that the Minister had failed to properly consider the child’s relationship with the foster mother’s children,
who met the statutory definition of “siblings.” The court also found that irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured
maintaining the status quo, as moving the child and potentially requiring a second move would be contrary to the child’s best interests. The
interlocutory injunction was granted: McIntyre v. New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development), 2024 CarswellNB 689 (N.B. C.K.B.).
Variation and Status Review Applications — Relocation pending final status — Although the Child, Youth and Family Services Act
contains no relocation provisions, courts may apply the relocation framework from the Children’s Law Reform Act in child protection cases
to promote consistency. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the protection concerns, the likelihood of timely parental progress,
the impact of the move on the parent-child relationship, and the child’s views and preferences. In this case, the mother had made no meaningful
progress in addressing the protection concerns since the children’s removal, while the father demonstrated a strong commitment to their
care. The court held that the children’s best interests were served by placement with the father in Montreal under supervision, with access to
the mother: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.P., 2026 CarswellOnt 7480, 2026 ONCJ 270.
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS IN CANADA
Release No. 7, September 2026
What's New in This Update
This release updates existing case digests in Chapter 10 — Reasons; Chapter 13 — Professional Misconduct; Chapter 14 — Sentencing and Chapter 15 — Appeals and Judicial Review. These digests have been reviewed and, where necessary, revised to reflect subsequent judicial decisions. Updates have also been made to Appendix IF — Issues in Focus and Appendix WP — Words and Phrases.
Highlights
Appendix IF. Issues in Focus - Updated for currency:
- e § IF:7. The regulation of professions and Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- e § IF:8. The regulation of professions and section 13 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- e § IF:9. The regulation of professions and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Appendix WP. Words and Phrases—§ WP:1. ABUSE OF PROCESS—New Brunswick—... Abuse of process is egregious or serious conduct which has been defined with terms such as “flagrant impropriety”, “improper motives”, and “bad faith” conduct which “undermines the integrity of the judicial process” or conduct which “results in trial unfairness”. ...: Steele v. Munn (2026), 2026 NBKB 125, 2026 NBBR 125, 2026 CarswellNB 406, 2026 CarswellNB 306 (N.B. C.K.B.) at para. 11 Hamou, J.
Note: all text under "What's New in this Update" and "Highlights" sections is taken verbatim from documents received from the publisher. MLL is not responsible for errors in this content.
Great LEXpectations RSS Feed