Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Petitions by Douglas Lake Cattle Company ULC and Sagebrush Golf Course Holdings Ltd. sought cancellation of a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered against the Sagebrush Property under s. 215 of the Land Title Act and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

• The underlying notice of civil claim by Calvin John Craig and 1142640 B.C. Ltd. alleges breach of agreements and misrepresentations related to the Langley Property, but the Sagebrush Property is only mentioned in a few paragraphs of the pleadings.

• The court found that the plaintiffs did not plead that any defendant actually had an interest in the Sagebrush Property, nor that proceeds of any sale of that property would be paid to Mr. Craig.

• The unjust enrichment claim, while theoretically capable of supporting a trust, was pleaded in connection with the Langley Property (renovations and deposits), not the Sagebrush Property.

• Facts and alleged evidence raised orally by Mr. Craig that were not pleaded in the notice of civil claim were not considered in the s. 215 Land Title Act analysis.

• The CPL was found to be improperly registered and was cancelled, with the petitioners awarded costs at Scale B, but special costs were declined given, among other things, Mr. Craig’s self-represented status at this stage.

Background and parties

This matter was heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, New Westminster Registry, before The Honourable Justice Gottardi. There were two petitions: one in action S260963 by Sagebrush Golf Course Holdings Ltd., and one in action S260954 by Douglas Lake Cattle Company ULC. Both petitions named as respondents Calvin John Craig and 1142640 B.C. Ltd. (“640 Ltd.”). Douglas Lake Cattle Company ULC is the owner of the lands at 6355 Stagecoach Trail, Quilchena, B.C., V0E 2R0 (the “Sagebrush Property”), and Sagebrush Golf Course Holdings Ltd. is the lessee and holder of a registered leasehold interest in those lands. The court accepted that both petitioners had standing to bring the petitions because both are impacted by the CPL registered against the Sagebrush Property. The petitions were argued together, and each petitioner essentially adopted the submissions of the other.

Facts underlying the civil claim

On July 14, 2025, Mr. Craig and 640 Ltd. commenced an action in the British Columbia Supreme Court by filing a notice of civil claim against Steveston Seafood Direct Inc., Andrew Knott, Ewen Nicholas Edward Knott, and Judith Marnell Knott. In that claim, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached certain agreements with Mr. Craig and made misrepresentations that induced him to purchase 640 Ltd. and caused him financial loss and expense associated with lands located at 25460 72nd Avenue, Langley, B.C. (the “Langley Property”). The notice of civil claim pleads that 640 Ltd. holds title to the Langley Property and is registered at that address. It further pleads that on or around March 30, 2020, Mr. Craig contracted to purchase the Langley Property from the defendants, that at the time Andrew Knott was the sole director and officer of 640 Ltd., and that Ewen and Judith Knott were the directors of Steveston Seafood, which held all shares in the capital of 640 Ltd. Mr. Craig alleges that the defendants breached multiple contracts of purchase and sale and failed to deliver clear title to the Langley Property. The parties subsequently agreed to a share purchase agreement under which Mr. Craig would purchase 640 Ltd., and the company was transferred to him on or about September 15, 2023.

Registration of the CPL against the Sagebrush Property

On July 15, 2025, Mr. Craig registered a CPL against the Sagebrush Property. In the notice of civil claim, under “Part 1, Statement of Facts,” Mr. Craig pleads that Andrew Knott gave further assurances that, although insurance proceeds had not yet been obtained to pay out a mortgage as promised, Andrew had an ownership stake in a property known as Sagebrush Golf Course located at 6355 Stagecoach Trail, Quilchena, B.C., with the legal description and parcel identifier set out in the pleading, and defined as “Sagebrush.” Mr. Craig pleads that Andrew told him that Sagebrush was being sold in or around May 2025 and promised that he would use his proceeds of the sale of Sagebrush to pay out a mortgage held by Karol Burkat. The pleading states that the sale of Sagebrush failed to materialize. The plaintiffs also plead that “the funds acquired under the Mortgage were used for the benefit of Andrew’s interest in Sagebrush, and for the benefit of Andrew’s interest in 1278157 B.C. Ltd., and, for the benefit of Andrew’s interest in 156315 B.C. Ltd.”

Unjust enrichment and the Langley Property

The notice of civil claim includes an unjust enrichment claim. The plaintiffs plead that the defendants have been unjustly enriched, that Mr. Craig has been correspondingly deprived, and that there is no juristic reason for the enrichment. In particular, they plead that renovations completed by Mr. Craig on “the Property” enhanced its value and utility; that the defendants were enriched by receiving deposits from Mr. Craig for their own use and benefit; that Mr. Craig suffered a deprivation in terms of money expended on renovations and deposits made under the assumption of a forthcoming valid purchase and sale agreement; and that the absence of juristic reason is based on the defendants knowing or ought to have known of existing financial charges on title and not being able to remove them. The court characterized this unjust enrichment claim as connected to the Langley Property, not the Sagebrush Property.

Legal framework for cancelling the CPL

The petitions sought cancellation of the CPL under s. 215 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court adopted and applied the legal framework summarized in earlier authorities. Section 215(1)(a) of the Land Title Act allows a person to commence a proceeding and register a CPL against land where they have pleaded an interest in that land. The decision notes that a CPL is an “extraordinary pre-judgment mechanism” to preserve a valid claim to an interest in land until the issues in dispute can be resolved, citing GMC Properties Inc. v. Rampart Estates Ltd., 2023 BCCA 172. The court further observed that a CPL that was never validly supported by a claimed interest in land may be immediately struck, citing Bilin v. Sidhu, 2017 BCCA 429, and 1332404 B.C. Ltd. v. 1266685 B.C. Ltd., 2025 BCCA 46. The test is whether the pleadings, assuming them to be true, support a claim to an interest in the specific land in question. No evidence is considered or weighed at this stage, and the merits of the underlying cause of action are not assessed. The court also emphasized that pleadings must be read as a whole when assessing whether a claim to an interest in land has been disclosed.

Court’s analysis of the pleadings and the Sagebrush Property

Justice Gottardi held that the plaintiffs’ notice of civil claim does not disclose a claim to an interest in the Sagebrush Property. The judge accepted, for the purposes of the analysis, that the pleadings are assumed to be true. However, the court found that, even on that assumption, no interest in the Sagebrush Property is validly pleaded. The reasons identify several specific deficiencies. First, the plaintiffs have not pleaded that Andrew Knott or any other defendant actually had an interest in the Sagebrush Property. Second, they have not pleaded that hypothetical proceeds of any sale of the Sagebrush Property would be paid to Mr. Craig. Third, they have not pleaded that any of the defendants had a claim to or in fact received any proceeds from the mortgage on the Langley Property. The court concluded that there is “no genuine nexus between the plaintiffs’ claims and the Sagebrush Property” pleaded. The reasons state that the Sagebrush Property “appears to be wholly unconnected to the contractual claims in the underlying proceeding,” and that there is nothing before the court indicating that any party to the contracts had an interest in the Sagebrush Property beyond the suggestion that Andrew Knott represented that he did. The court noted that Mr. Craig has not pleaded that Andrew Knott in fact had or has an interest in the Sagebrush Property, only that he represented that he did.

In oral submissions, Mr. Craig attempted to outline facts and evidence that were not pleaded or otherwise set out in his notice of civil claim. The court held that such material could not form part of the s. 215 Land Title Act analysis and stated that it could not say at this stage whether the result would have been different if those facts had been pleaded. Even accepting, solely for the purpose of the s. 215 analysis, that Mr. Knott made the statements alleged, the court observed that any remedy would be against Mr. Knott personally for damages, which would not create an interest in land.

Trust and tracing theories

The court acknowledged that unjust enrichment is, in theory, capable of supporting a trust claim over property such as the Sagebrush Property. However, it held that, in this case, the unjust enrichment claim is connected to the Langley Property, not the Sagebrush Property, and that this is fatal to the validity of the CPL as against the Sagebrush Property. Specifically, the pleadings of unjust enrichment relate to uncompensated renovations to the Langley Property and deposits paid by Mr. Craig in relation to the purchase of the Langley Property and of 640 Ltd., not to any transaction concerning the Sagebrush Property. The court also addressed the allegation at paragraph 61 of the notice of civil claim that funds acquired under a mortgage, which Andrew Knott was contractually bound to discharge, were used for the benefit of his interests, including in Sagebrush. The court described this as a bald assertion “without anything further” and noted that, while evidence is not required at this stage, the plaintiffs have not pleaded even basic facts related to the allegedly fraudulent transfer of funds. As a result, while the plaintiffs seek tracing, the court found it difficult to determine what exactly they seek to trace and how that might assist in establishing a constructive trust. The court concluded that the pleadings cannot be read in a way that would allow it to find the facts necessary to establish a constructive trust, express trust, or resulting trust over the Sagebrush Property. The reasons also observe that the Sagebrush Property “does not belong in any of the defendants,” and that there is no nexus between any cause of action advanced by the plaintiffs and that property. Although it was not necessary to the outcome, the court further noted that the plaintiffs have not pleaded that monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy, which would be a precondition to a proprietary trust remedy rather than a monetary remedy.

Improper purpose of the CPL and costs

The judge held that the CPL in this case appears to have been filed as “leverage to secure [a] financial claim,” contrary to the purpose of certificates of pending litigation, citing Drein v. Puleo, 2016 BCSC 593. The petitioners argued, and the court accepted, that this was essentially admitted by Mr. Craig in his affidavit material. The court stated that to the extent the plaintiffs filed a CPL to obtain security for their claims, this is an improper use of the instrument. Justice Gottardi concluded that, because the plaintiffs’ notice of civil claim is incapable of supporting a claim to an interest in the Sagebrush Property, the CPL must be cancelled pursuant to s. 215 of the Land Title Act. The petitioners were successful and were awarded their costs at Scale B.

The petitioners also sought special costs. The court declined to order special costs. The reasons note that Mr. Craig had been informed that he had not pleaded an interest in land and was given an opportunity to voluntarily remove the CPL, and that he originally retained counsel but was self-represented at this stage. The judge recognized that self-representation does not automatically preclude special costs but stated that courts must exercise restraint in such circumstances. Justice Gottardi found that, although the CPL was improperly registered, Mr. Craig’s conduct could not fairly be characterized as “reprehensible” so as to justify special costs, and the court was unable to conclude that his legal strategy was reckless. The petitioners relied on Basha Sales Co. Ltd. v. Adera Equities Inc., 2017 BCSC 1715, where special costs were ordered in part based on an improperly registered CPL, but the court distinguished that case on the basis that those plaintiffs were “sophisticated” and “advised by sophisticated counsel throughout,” which are not the facts here. The successful parties in this decision are Douglas Lake Cattle Company ULC and Sagebrush Golf Course Holdings Ltd., and they were awarded costs at Scale B. The total monetary amount of those costs is not specified in the decision.