The sheriff is supposed to help creditors get their money back. Every creditor soon learns how ineffective the sheriff actually is in assisting in the recovery of mortgaged property. Being the statutory agent tasked with carrying out the seizure and sale orders of the court, it would be ideal if the sheriff acted with speed and cost effectiveness.
When seizing and selling a mortgaged property owned by a debtor, the sheriff says he needs a mortgage discharge statement from the mortgagee. In the old days, this was simply a matter of requiring the debtor or bank to produce.
These are new days where the supreme court of Canada makes sure every debtor is snuggly protected by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documentation Act (PIPEDA).
Long story short: the creditor can get the mortgage discharge statement by ‘examining the bank’ under Rule 60 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
We will see if the banks read this case as a 5 minute exercise in production or whether the banks are going to use this as another tool to obstruct the creditor seeking recovery.
RBC v. Trang (2018), 144 O.R.(3d) 384 has that excellent SCC quality of being indirect, obscure, through-the-back-door, and so very, very, solicitous of the delicate privacy rights of debtors.
