Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant, 1338479 B.C. Ltd. ("8479"), applied to cancel a certificate of pending litigation ("CPL") filed by the plaintiffs against a commercial property in Richmond, B.C., on the basis that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an interest in land as required by s. 215 of the Land Title Act ("LTA").
   
• Registered in April 2026, the CPL was filed against the backdrop of a disputed commercial lease termination and the plaintiffs' claims of duress, breach of lease, seizure of business property, and leasehold improvements valued at approximately $15,000.
   
• Central to the application was whether the plaintiffs' pleadings — asserting an equitable lien, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust over leasehold improvements — disclosed a valid interest in land sufficient to support the CPL.
   
• Breach of a lease agreement does not constitute a claim to an interest in land, as a successful damages award would not result in any change to title.
   
• Claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust were found inadequate because the relationship between the parties was governed by the Lease Agreement and the Termination Agreement, which provided for the disposition of fixtures upon lease-end — thereby barring any unjust enrichment claim.
   
• Justice Forth ordered the CPL cancelled pursuant to s. 215 of the LTA and awarded costs to the defendant 8479.

Facts of the case

GSM Visuals Ltd. (1306365) ("GMS Visuals") and its principal, Gursharn Singh, were plaintiffs in an action against 1338479 B.C. Ltd. ("8479"), Bahram Heidari, Tinybot Vinyl Canada Ltd. BC1357578, and Doug Min. The case arose from a commercial lease dispute over two strata lots known collectively as the "Premises" — comprising Unit 100 and Unit 102 at 13880 Wireless Way, Richmond, B.C. — of which 8479 was the registered owner.

On July 5, 2023, 8479, as landlord, entered into a commercial lease agreement with GMS Visuals as tenant and Mr. Singh as guarantor. GMS Visuals was engaged in the business of automotive wrap services and customization work. On or about June 10, 2024, the parties executed a termination agreement (the "Termination Agreement") for failure to pay rent. Under the Termination Agreement, 8479 was entitled to retain the security deposit of $9,450 and apply it to unpaid rent, cleaning fees, damages, legal fees, NSF fees, late fees, administration fees, or other amounts owed. At the time of signing, 8479 claimed outstanding rent of $12,500.

Mr. Singh contested the Termination Agreement, alleging he signed it under duress and that it was 8479 that had breached the Lease by failing to provide functional water and a usable washroom, thereby delaying his operations. He maintained that the Lease Agreement remained the governing agreement and alleged that he was subsequently locked out of the Premises and that the defendants seized his business property and investments.

On February 9, 2026, 8479 entered into a contract of purchase and sale of the Premises with PSA Family Holding Corporation for a purchase price of $2,080,000, with a completion date of May 11, 2026. That contract required 8479 to provide title free and clear of all encumbrances. On March 4, 2026, the plaintiffs commenced this action by notice of civil claim, which was amended on April 8, 2026 (the "ANOCC"). On April 8, 2026, the plaintiffs registered the CPL against the Property (Unit 102, 13880 Wireless Way). As of the date of the hearing on May 5, 2026, the defendants had not yet filed a response to the ANOCC.

Policy and contractual terms at issue

Two clauses of the Lease Agreement were directly relevant to the court's analysis of the plaintiffs' leasehold improvements claim. Clause 12.22 specifically provided that upon termination, the plaintiffs were required to surrender all fixtures to 8479. Clause 14.03 provided that if the fixtures remained the property of the plaintiffs, they were required to remove them from the Premises at their own cost. The existence of these contractual provisions, together with the Termination Agreement, was central to the court's rejection of the unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Forth applied the established legal principle that to register and maintain a CPL against land, a party must claim an interest in that land as required by s. 215(1) of the LTA. The applicable test — drawn from Boston Development Corp. v. Takhar, 2026 BCSC 784 — is whether the facts pleaded, assumed to be true, are capable of supporting a claim to an interest in land. No weighing of evidence is involved; the court looks only at whether such a claim is pleaded.

The court considered three categories of claims advanced in the ANOCC. First, the claim for breach of the Lease Agreement was found not to be a claim in relation to land: a successful breach of lease claim gives rise to damages but does not result in any change to title. Second, the plaintiffs' claim for an equitable lien over leasehold improvements valued at approximately $15,000 — including electrical installations, lighting systems, and warehouse operational fixtures — was found to assert no interest in the land itself. Third, the court examined the claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust. Applying Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, Justice Forth noted that unjust enrichment requires proof that the defendant was enriched, the plaintiff suffered a corresponding deprivation, and there was an absence of juristic reason — but here, the Lease Agreement and Termination Agreement constituted juristic reasons that barred the unjust enrichment claim. Applying the conditions for constructive trust from Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217, the court found that the ANOCC did not plead any circumstances entitling the plaintiffs to that remedy — and that, even if the action succeeded, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a monetary award only, not any entitlement to the Property itself.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Forth concluded that the plaintiffs' pleadings were inadequate, in their present form, to disclose an interest in land. Accordingly, the CPL was ordered cancelled pursuant to s. 215 of the LTA, effective May 5, 2026. Costs were awarded to the successful defendant, 8479, in the cause. No specific monetary quantum for costs was stated in the judgment.