ELECTRONIC FILING IN BC:
WHAT’S NEW AND HOW TO USE
CLIENT-CENTRIC TOOLS TO
GET RESULTS
Session TBG1 (1:15 - 2:15pm)
Pacifi...
Speakers
 Grant McLaney
In-House Counsel & Manager, Real
Property Support Services,
Dye & Durham Corporation
 Laurelly D...
 Became a priority for BC’s government in 1997
 Lawyers played a key role in its evolution
 We’ve come a long way since...
 In 1999, around the time the first electronic land
documents were beginning to be registered in
Ontario, the initiative ...
 The LTSA was established in 2004 to assume the
operation of the provincial land title and survey system
 LTSA was enact...
 In 2011, another key development occurred –
mandatory electronic filing was announced by the LTSA
 July 1, 2011, Postin...
National Acceptance & Admissibility
 Historical (and current) resistance R v. Ellison [1978] B.C.J. No.
252 (Co. Ct.) “.....
Alberta
 Electronic Courtroom leader. Sawridge litigations 1996.
 “If a paper- based trial was attempted it would requir...
PLTC Nov. 7th 2003
 Vision into the future. Bilinsky & Williamson: Adobe Acrobat = new platform
for electronic documents....
Legislative Amendments
 BC Supreme Court Civil Rules 23-3
 BC Supreme Court Family Rules 22-4
 (12) Electronic Signatur...
11
Dye & Durham’s
© 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
 Disciplinary matter involving lawyers e-filing
 Williams (Re), 2010 LSBC 31 – re: affixing electronic signature
without...
Case law
 Keatley Surveying LTD v Teranet Inc 2012 ONSC 7120
 Copyright case – surveys agreed to constitute “artistic wo...
 Very few legal challenges to the sanctity of the electronic
land filing systems – most challenges peripheral in nature
...
Allowable Disbursement
 Van Daele v. Van Daele 56 BCLR 178 (BCCA): “not being
extravagant, negligent, mistaken or a resul...
“Electronic Filing Cabinet”
 New disclosure abolishes Peruvian Guano test, outlined in
More Marine Ltd. v. Alcan Inc., 20...
Statistics
 89.2% of land title document registrations have been
submitted electronically, which is up from 66.6%
(or, 3....
 Authorized Subscriber Registry
 ParcelMap BC
 Other
18
What’s New with Land E-Filing? (Cont’d)
© 2013 Dye & Durham Cor...
 Modernizing with the industry
 Expertise
 Accounting
 Error reduction
 Helping you adapt
 Value
19
The Role of the ...
 Land E-filing: the present and future
 Lawyers’ role
 Deference from judiciary
 Agents’ role
20
Summary
© 2013 Dye & ...
LD’s Conclusion
 Virtual Registry is not a practical reality in the near future;
however, electronic filing will become t...
E-Filing: What’s Your Role?
22
23
Questions & Answers
© 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

PLTC 2013: Electronic Filing in BC: What’s New and How to Use Client-Centric Technologies to Achieve Results

1,017 views

Published on

eFiling is today’s norm. This session examines efiling in our registries, courts and boards and how best to configure your office technology to achieve the best results.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PLTC 2013: Electronic Filing in BC: What’s New and How to Use Client-Centric Technologies to Achieve Results

  1. 1. ELECTRONIC FILING IN BC: WHAT’S NEW AND HOW TO USE CLIENT-CENTRIC TOOLS TO GET RESULTS Session TBG1 (1:15 - 2:15pm) Pacific Legal Technology Conference October 4, 2013 1
  2. 2. Speakers  Grant McLaney In-House Counsel & Manager, Real Property Support Services, Dye & Durham Corporation  Laurelly Dale In-House Counsel & Manager, Litigation Support Services, Dye & Durham Corporation  Andrew Clark Justice Sector Technology Consultant  Ron Usher Society of Notaries Public BC 2
  3. 3.  Became a priority for BC’s government in 1997  Lawyers played a key role in its evolution  We’ve come a long way since Torrens “The introduction of the Torrens System was met with “often-vicious” attacks from Torrens’ opponents, many of whom were lawyers, who feared the loss of conveyancing work because of the introduction of such a relatively simple system.” - Robinson, Stanley, Transfer of Land in Victoria (1979) 3 History of Land E-Filing in BC © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  4. 4.  In 1999, around the time the first electronic land documents were beginning to be registered in Ontario, the initiative was gaining steam in BC  1999-2003 development and design  2004 - the beginning of a phased roll out of electronic filing  In its infancy in 2004, electronic filing was limited in scope  Lawyers were a driving force behind making electronic filing a priority, and then a reality 4 History of Land E-Filing in BC (Cont’d) © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  5. 5.  The LTSA was established in 2004 to assume the operation of the provincial land title and survey system  LTSA was enacted to deliver three main services: 1) Ensuring the continued integrity of BC’s system for registering land titles and interests, 2) Maintaining the quality of BC’s land survey structure, and 3) Upon direction of the province, issuing Crown grant documents transferring Crown land to private ownership  Milestones 5 History of Land E-Filing in BC (Cont’d) © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  6. 6.  In 2011, another key development occurred – mandatory electronic filing was announced by the LTSA  July 1, 2011, Posting Plans must occur electronically  January 16, 2012 many of the most common submissions (Transfers, Mortgages, Charges, and Releases) were required to be filed electronically  Exemptions from mandatory e-filing  May, 2012 – Phase Two  Significantly expanded the scope of documents subject to mandatory e-filing 6 Mandatory Land E-Filing in BC © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  7. 7. National Acceptance & Admissibility  Historical (and current) resistance R v. Ellison [1978] B.C.J. No. 252 (Co. Ct.) “.... I ignore the impact of modern technology.”  SCC transformation  Binding precedents & admissibility  National Agencies using electronic filing  Federal Court  Amendments to the CCC. 7 Court E-Filing & Documents © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  8. 8. Alberta  Electronic Courtroom leader. Sawridge litigations 1996.  “If a paper- based trial was attempted it would require two football stadiums full from bottom to top.” Ontario  Pressure to convert & amend forms. Wallbridge, re 2010 ONSC 3409.  Orders made sharing costs of scanning and coding in large cases. Baker. Nova Scotia  Charter challenge to higher fees Pleau v. Nova Scotia 43 CPC (4th) 2011. Outlying Provinces & Their Impact on BC 8 © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  9. 9. PLTC Nov. 7th 2003  Vision into the future. Bilinsky & Williamson: Adobe Acrobat = new platform for electronic documents. CSO  1997 initiation. Launched 2004.  File & Search capabilities available at 43 locations in BC.  Statutory filing fee(s)  Scanning documents for submission = PDF; 8MB; DPI resolution (300DPI or lower); portrait; not landscape.  30 days  Courtesy Correct v. Rejected  “RUSH”  Turn-Around Times 9 COURT E-FILING IN BC- Refresher © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  10. 10. Legislative Amendments  BC Supreme Court Civil Rules 23-3  BC Supreme Court Family Rules 22-4  (12) Electronic Signature Authentication  BC Court of Appeal Rules 54.1  BC Small Claims Court Rules 22.  New Family Law Act, S.B.C. [2011] Chapter 25. Rule 22. *Note* electronic filing permitted but not practically available to public. 10 COURT E-FILING IN BC- Refresher (Cont’d.) © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  11. 11. 11 Dye & Durham’s © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  12. 12.  Disciplinary matter involving lawyers e-filing  Williams (Re), 2010 LSBC 31 – re: affixing electronic signature without proper supporting documentation  Agreed relatively recent phenomenon being considered at such a hearing for the first time  “Given the importance of the role played by lawyers who act as officers, conduct related to the electronic submission of improperly executed documents must be viewed as serious.”  Law Society of Upper Canada v. Baksh [2012] L.S.D.D. No. 73  real estate lawyer allowed his assistant to use his own password- protected system access diskette without any meaningful supervision – disbarred Land E-Filing Case Law in Canada 12 © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  13. 13. Case law  Keatley Surveying LTD v Teranet Inc 2012 ONSC 7120  Copyright case – surveys agreed to constitute “artistic works” under Ontario’s Copyright Act – however, when individual plans of survey were deposited in land registry offices, copyright transferred to the Crown by operation of the Act, and converting to PDF/TIFF not “translating” artistic works under the Act  Petroff Partnership Architects v. Mobius Corp. [2003] O.J. No. 2434  An electronic statement to support a lien filing, though lesser in substance than the sworn affidavit of verification required under Ontario’s Construction Lien Act was in a format approved by the Director of Titles under the Land Titles Act and was thus deemed to be sufficient  The court dismissed the motion to vacate and discharge the lien 13 Land E-Filing Case Law in Canada (Cont’d) © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  14. 14.  Very few legal challenges to the sanctity of the electronic land filing systems – most challenges peripheral in nature  Lawyers taking shortcuts by not reviewing originally executed copies of documents, or permitting their staff to affix electronic signatures, are being enforced and punished  Judiciary has upheld electronic filing standards set by Directors of Land Titles pursuant to the enabling legislation, and discouraged actions calling into question electronic service delivery methods  Future challenges likely to be limited in number 14 Land E-Filing Case Law in Canada (Cont’d) © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  15. 15. Allowable Disbursement  Van Daele v. Van Daele 56 BCLR 178 (BCCA): “not being extravagant, negligent, mistaken or a result of excessive caution or excessive zeal.” Electronic Filing Not Mandatory, But When It IS:  $7.00 CSO filing fees allowed at cost hearing Milkovic v. ICBC 2010 BCSC 1567.  Gill v. Widjaja [2012] BCWLD 4545: “...until such time as a practice direction is issued requiring electronic filing, ....agent’s filing fees, when incurred, is a proper disbursement.” HOWEVER, “the least expensive approach to litigation” should apply. 15 COURT E-FILING IN BC CASE LAW - Costs 15 © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  16. 16. “Electronic Filing Cabinet”  New disclosure abolishes Peruvian Guano test, outlined in More Marine Ltd. v. Alcan Inc., 2010 BCSC 593 [In Chambers]; however, the production of hundreds or thousands of text messages may not pass relevancy test for admissibility.  1,500 tweets/texts/facebook messages= do they pass the relevancy test for admissibility? Must also be cost effective. 16 COURT E-FILING IN BC CASE LAW - Costs & Production 16 © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  17. 17. Statistics  89.2% of land title document registrations have been submitted electronically, which is up from 66.6% (or, 3.5 million electronic transactions) last year  5.3 days average turnaround time for land title documents and survey plans  Crown land survey plans had an average processing time of 8.1 days for Land Act survey confirmations.  Crown grant documents were issued with an average turnaround time of 3.5 days 17 What’s New with Land E-Filing? © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  18. 18.  Authorized Subscriber Registry  ParcelMap BC  Other 18 What’s New with Land E-Filing? (Cont’d) © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  19. 19.  Modernizing with the industry  Expertise  Accounting  Error reduction  Helping you adapt  Value 19 The Role of the Land Registry Agent © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  20. 20.  Land E-filing: the present and future  Lawyers’ role  Deference from judiciary  Agents’ role 20 Summary © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  21. 21. LD’s Conclusion  Virtual Registry is not a practical reality in the near future; however, electronic filing will become the majority within 5-8 years. Following needs to occur:  Electronic Document Management in Firms  Funding & Resources. Provincial Family law forms. Commitment to bringing more than 50% of profession onto electronic filing.  Amendments to archaic forms  Investigate Alberta’s lead and consider cost consequences for upgrades to electronic courtrooms. Should electronic courtrooms become a reality, bound documents could be uploaded digitally and eliminate the need for binders.  Criminal & Civil “mega-trials”. Disclosure obligations met by uploading ESI to secure website.  Increased references from the bench regarding electronic filing and cost savings.  Rules of evidence must continue to evolve. 21 FUTURE OF THE VIRTUAL REGISTRY IN BC 21 © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.
  22. 22. E-Filing: What’s Your Role? 22
  23. 23. 23 Questions & Answers © 2013 Dye & Durham Corporation. www.dyedurhambc.com.

×