Title Insurance Providers Introduce Increased Protection for Lenders from Super Priority Liens and Deemed Trusts The recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto-Dominion Bank v Canada, 2020 FCA 80 (“TD v Canada”), created a new cause for concern for lenders. The facts of the case are as follows: In 2007 and 2008 the debtor, before becoming a customer of the Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD”), failed to remit to the Receiver General of Canada over $67,000 worth of GST in relation to his business. In 2010, TD extended a loan and a line of credit to the debtor, both of which were secured against a property owned by the debtor. In 2011 the debtor sold the property in question and repaid the loan and line of credit. TD then discharged all charges registered against the property. Two years later, the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) commenced a deemed trust claim under Section 222 of the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E.15 (the “Act”) on the basis that the unremitted GST amounts constituted a deemed trust and the proceeds from the sale of the property should have been paid to the Receiver General before they were paid to anyone else. At trial, the Federal Court (2018 FC 538) held that the unremitted GST amounts were indeed subject to the deemed trust provisions of Section 222 of the Act, and, because the deemed trust existed before TD registered its security interest against the property, the CRA had a super-priority lien on the sale proceeds of the property. TD was therefore obliged to remit the amount of the GST debt to the CRA. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Outcome This decision is worrisome to lenders for several reasons. First and foremost, amounts covered by the deemed trust provisions in the Act, as well as other amounts that result in a deemed trust, such as pension deductions that an employer fails to remit under Section 227 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c1, are not registered on title to a property. Therefore, it is often very difficult to determine if a deemed trust exists at the time a lender seeks to register a security interest against a property. Despite this, if a deemed trust is later found to have existed before a security interest was registered against a debtor’s property, the amount subject to the deemed trust will form a super-priority overpayment made to the lender. This includes payments made from the proceeds of the sale of the secured property. The amounts in question can be significant, and these claims can be brought forward many years after a property has been sold and the security interests discharged. Title Insurance While title insurance has, for some time, offered protection against these types of super-priority claims, there is a caveat. Traditionally, coverage under a lender’s title insurance policy ends once the mortgage to which it applies is discharged and therefore, there was no protection for lenders with respect to super-priority claims made following such discharge. In response to TD v Canada, title insurers have begun to introduce new types of coverage for super-priority claims made up to ten years following the discharge of a mortgage. This coverage, with certain exceptions and limitations, gives lenders peace of mind that they are protected from super-priority claims made against them long after they have discharged their security interests against a property. The new coverage is available for both residential and commercial properties. For more information on title insurance protection for deemed trust amounts and super-priority claims, or on title insurance in general, please contact Justin Cooper, Commercial Real Estate Lawyer at Devry Smith Frank LLP, 416-446-3343, justin.cooper@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateSeptember 30, 2020July 5, 2023
Construction Trust Claims: How to Protect Yourself Caught up in the moment of construction work chaos and scrambling to complete jobs, it is all too easy for invoices to accrue and accounts to build up. While construction liens provide one way to secure payment due to contractors and subcontractors, preventing one’s lien rights from expiring requires meeting strict deadlines, which are often missed. Construction Trusts The Construction Lien Act creates a scheme for statutory trusts which exist for the benefit of contractors and subcontractors. All amounts received by an owner, other than the Crown or a municipality, that is to be used in financing a project constitute a trust fund for the benefit of contractors. Similarly, all amounts owing to a contractor or subcontractor, whether or not due or payable, or received by a contractor or subcontractor, on account of the contract or subcontract price of improvement, constitute a trust fund for the benefit of the subcontractors and other persons who have supplied services or materials to the improvement who are owed amounts by the contractor or subcontractor. Owners and contractors who hold funds in the trust can only apply those funds for purposes consistent with the trust. Otherwise, the corporation or person who is the trustee along with the officers and directors of a corporate trustee, and any person “who has effective control of a corporation or its relevant activities” which could include employees or agents of the corporation, may be held personally liable. This can often make a difference from a recovery perspective, especially if the payer is a corporation, and the corporation is insolvent. According to St. Mary’s Cement Corp. v Construc Ltd., the following elements must be proven to establish the existence of a trust: The plaintiff who is owed did supply services or materials: This can be established by oral testimony or substantiated through documentation including invoices, communication confirming services and materials provided (ie. By e-mail, text, etc), account statements, etc. The project is considered an “improvement” pursuant to the Construction Lien Act: According to section 1(1) of the Act, an “improvement” means, in respect of any land (a) any alteration, addition or repair to the land, (b) any construction, erection or installation on the land, including the installation of industrial, mechanical, electrical or other equipment on the land or on any building, structure or works on the land that is essential to the normal or intended use of the land, building, structure or works, or (c) the complete or partial demolition or removal of any building, structure or works on the land The contractor would have to describe its role in the project, the work it was hired to complete, the work that was in fact completed, and how it fits under one of the three categories above. The plaintiff is owed monies on the project The defendant(s) received money for the improvement: The plaintiff would need to demonstrate that the defendant(s) – be it the owner of the property, the general contractor, or a higher-up sub-contractor – has received funds for work completed. This information may be obtained by way of a request for information under section 39 of the Act. While construction trust claims may be a useful tool for contractors and subcontractors who are seeking to collect on unpaid accounts, the flipside of this is that owners, contractors, and sub-contractors who are trustees need to be cautious in order to avoid exposure. In addition to keeping proper records, trustees should keep trust funds separate from their general accounts. When trust funds for the project are mixed with other funding and expenses in one general bank account, it is much more difficult for a trustee to account for the trust funds and as a result, the trustee is more likely to become exposed. For more information or any other questions regarding construction trusts, please contact our construction law team of lawyers. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Construction LawMay 12, 2017June 23, 2020
