Court File and Parties
CITATION: Faria v. Cairo, 2026 ONSC 4477
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION UNDER sections 159 and 160 of the Land Titles Act, RSO 1990, c L.5. and Rules 14.05(3)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194
BETWEEN:
DAVID FARIA
Applicant
– and –
THE ESTATE OF ANTONIO CAIRO, DECEASED and THE ESTATE OF
CHIARA CAIRO, DECEASED
Respondents
Marc Whiteley and Dylan S. Fisher, for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondents
HEARD: In writing
Reasons for Judgment
John callaghan J.
1This Application seeks to rectify a title error that first arose in 1987 because of a mistake in the registration of a survivorship application. This initial mistake was subsequently missed in successive transfers of the condominium property at issue in this Application, which is municipally known as 1511-10 Martha Eaton Way, Toronto, Ontario (the “Property”).
2The Property is made up of three components. The first is a condominium dwelling unit (the “Dwelling Unit”). The second and third are two parking units associated with the Dwelling Unit (“Parking Unit 41” and “Parking Unit 126”, collectively the “Parking Units”).
3The Property was sold and transferred numerous times. In 2006, the Applicant and his grandmother purchased the Property. The grandmother died. The Applicant obtained sole title to the Dwelling Unit by way of a survivorship application registered January 15, 2026.
4As part of the Condominium Corporation’s Declaration, the Dwelling Units and Parking Units were always intended to be conveyed at the same time. As a result of an error at the time of the death of the initial owner, the Parking Units were not transferred as required. Subsequent owners, including the Applicant, have always understood that they had paid for and had title to the Parking Units. There is no suggestion that any prior owner retained any legal or equitable interest in the Parking Units once they sold the Property.
5Only recently has it come to light that the registration was incorrect. The Applicant as the current owner of the Property now seeks to rectify the registration so that the Parking Units are registered in his name with the Dwelling Unit.
6The initial owners’ estates have been named as the respondents as they are registered as owners of the Parking Units. They appear to have died many years ago, possibly as far back as 1987. The initial owners have no continuing interest in the Property and there has been no claim by them over the years that they have any continuing interest. The Property has been transferred over the years with each successive owner believing it acquired the Parking Units.
7The Applicant seeks rectification of title to the Parking Units. The leading authority on the topic of rectification is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Fairmont Hotels Inc., 2016 SCC 56. The underlying doctrine animating the rectification remedy was explained by Brown J. as follows:
If by mistake a legal instrument does not accord with the true agreement it was intended to record – because a term had been omitted, an unwanted item included, or a term incorrectly expressed the parties’ agreement – a court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction to rectify the instrument so as to make it accord with the parties’ true agreement.
8Further, sections 159 and 160 of the Land Titles Act confer the court a broad discretion to rectify a property’s register in a manner that is just. These sections provide:
159…..[s]ubject to any estates or rights by registration under this Act, where a court of competent jurisdiction has decided that a person is entitled to an estate, right or interest in or to registered land or a charge and as a consequence of the decision the court is of the opinion that a rectification of the register is required, the court may make an order directing the register to be rectified in such manner as is considered just.
160….[s]ubject to any estates or rights acquired by registration under this Act, if a person is aggrieved by an entry made, or by the omission of an entry from the register, or if default is made or unnecessary delay takes place in making an entry in the register, the person aggrieved by the entry, omission, default or delay may apply to the court for an order that the register be rectified, and the court may either refuse the application with or without costs to be paid by the applicant or may, if satisfied of the justice of the case, make an order for the rectification of the register.
9Finally, s.100 of the Courts of Justice Act provides that:
A court may by order vest in any person an interest in real property that the court has authority to order be disposed of, encumbered or conveyed.
10In my view, the evidence establishes, because of the omission to register a survivorship application in 1987, the transfers registered on title between parties since that time have mistakenly omitted to include the Parking Units. The initial owners no longer have any interest in the Parking Units, and the Applicant is entitled to have title to the Parking Units in his name. This is consistent with the intention of the transfers that occurred over the years.
11Accordingly, rectification of the register in the form of the order presented on this Application is justified, including vesting title of the Parking Units in the Applicant pursuant to s.100 of the Courts of Justice Act.
12The draft Order submitted on this Application, which has been pre-approved by the Land Registry Office, shall be issued as follows:
(a) A declaration Antonio Cairo and Chiara Cairo, and their Estates, have no interest, beneficial or legal, in the Parking Units;
(b) An Order vesting title to the Parking Units in the Applicant as registered owner;
c) A declaration and Order that the vesting shall be deemed to have occurred on December 15, 2006; and
(d) An Order that the Land Registrar shall vest title free and clear and without regard to, any relevant writs of execution that may have been filed with the Sheriff as against each and every registered owner, either before or after the date of the vesting order.
13There shall be no costs of this Application.
Callaghan J.
Released: August 4, 2026