Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• RBC sought an interim order for possession of a 2017 Jaguar Sedan under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 104 of the Courts of Justice Act.
• Central to the dispute is whether the defendant, who purchased the vehicle from a private seller for $13,000, qualifies as a bona fide purchaser without knowledge of RBC's registered security interest.
• Evidentiary gaps undermined RBC's claim, as it failed to produce sufficient proof of default, including a loan statement.
• Fraud allegations complicate the matter, as the defendant asserts the individual who entered into the Conditional Sales Contract with RBC had stolen the identity of William Brock Tomlinson.
• RBC's constructive notice argument under the Personal Property Security Act was weakened by the defendant's reliance on two documents — including a CARFAX report — that stated no lien records were found.
• Balance of convenience favoured the defendant, given his three-year possession of the vehicle and RBC's delayed commencement of the action.

Facts of the case

Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") financed the purchase of a 2017 Jaguar Sedan through a Conditional Sales Contract dated March 15, 2023, with an individual identified as William Brock Tomlinson. The contract required payment of $42,616.51 at an interest rate of 8.99% per annum, with monthly installments of $767.15 beginning April 10, 2023. RBC says no payments were ever made, placing the borrower in default as of April 10, 2023. RBC registered a lien against the vehicle's VIN under the Personal Property Security Act ("PPSA") on March 17, 2023.

Before the contract concluded, the vehicle was sold to the defendant, Mian Muhammad Sajawal, without RBC's knowledge. The defendant says he purchased the vehicle on April 4, 2023, through a private Kijiji listing for $13,000, paid by e-transfer. Prior to completing the purchase, he verified the seller's Ontario driver's licence, reviewed a CARFAX Canada Vehicle History Report dated March 21, 2023, and received a Used Vehicle Information Package — both of which stated "No Lien Records Found."

The night of purchase, in the early morning of April 5, 2023, the vehicle was stolen from the defendant's driveway by the seller using a second key fob he had retained. The defendant tracked the vehicle using an Apple AirTag, reported the theft to police, and traced it to Montreal. On April 6, 2023, Montreal Police located and impounded the vehicle. The defendant paid $5,500 in impound and towing charges to recover it. He subsequently transferred the vehicle registration into his name on September 14, 2023, and, upon discovering the lien, attended an RBC branch on October 23, 2023 to request a lien clearance certificate — which RBC representatives were unable or unwilling to provide, as the loan was not in his name. The defendant also believes, based on information from police, that the person who entered into the loan with RBC had assumed Mr. Tomlinson's identity and was not in fact Mr. Tomlinson.

RBC commenced this action on February 18, 2026, seeking recovery of the vehicle and payment of $53,858.27 — the balance outstanding as of that date — along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The defendant filed his Statement of Defence on or around March 13, 2026.

Contractual and statutory provisions at issue

The Conditional Sales Contract contained two key provisions central to RBC's claim. First, it provided that RBC is entitled to possession of the vehicle upon an event of default. Second, it stipulated that title to and ownership of the vehicle remains with RBC until all amounts owing under the contract are paid in full. RBC relied on these clauses to assert its right to interim possession. The PPSA lien, registered on March 17, 2023, was also relied upon as constituting constructive notice to the world — including to the defendant — of RBC's security interest in the vehicle.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Associate Justice Glick applied the three-part test for interim possession orders set out in Baca v. Tatarinov, 2017 ONSC 2935: (a) substantial grounds that the plaintiff is the legal owner entitled to possession; (b) substantial grounds that the property is being unlawfully detained; and (c) the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff. The court also noted, referencing Jacobs v. Hill, 2016 ONSC 4637, that an interim possession order is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional cases, requiring a high degree of certainty that the moving party will succeed at trial.

On the first ground, the court found that RBC's evidence of default was insufficient. Beyond a bare assertion in the affidavit that $53,858.27 was outstanding, no supporting documentation — such as a loan statement — was produced. On the second ground, the court found no substantial grounds to conclude that the defendant was unlawfully detaining the vehicle. The defendant's evidence of due diligence — producing two documents stating no lien existed — went unchallenged. The court also acknowledged the defendant's argument that if the security agreement was void because the contracting party had fraudulently assumed Mr. Tomlinson's identity, no valid security interest enforceable against an innocent third-party purchaser under the PPSA could arise. RBC did not address whether Mr. Tomlinson was a fraud victim, nor did it explain how the defendant was unlawfully detaining the vehicle or provide evidence of demands for its return. The court noted that while the plaintiff argued the defendant's fraud argument would equally void his purchase, no case law was provided in support.

On the balance of convenience, the court found it favoured the defendant. The defendant had possessed the vehicle for over three years, and RBC had been aware of his possession since at least October 2023 yet did not commence the action until February 2026. There was no allegation that the defendant would dispose of the vehicle or frustrate RBC's claim. The defendant argued that losing the vehicle would cause irreparable harm, as he had spent money on impound and towing costs with no realistic prospect of recovery against what he described as a fugitive fraudster.

Ruling and outcome

Associate Justice Glick dismissed RBC's motion on all three grounds. The court found that RBC had not satisfied the significant onus required to justify the extraordinary remedy of interim possession. The defendant, Mian Muhammad Sajawal, was the successful party on this motion. No monetary award or costs were ordered at this stage — costs were reserved to the hearing of the summary judgment motion, which was scheduled to be returnable on July 15, 2026.