Discovering a potential route to recover fraud losses is only the beginning. If a lawsuit affects someone else’s property, the steps taken to advance it can be just as important as the allegations themselves.

In Manning v. Dhalla, 2026 BCSC 1964, the Supreme Court of British Columbia removed a certificate of pending litigation, or CPL, after prolonged inactivity. The ruling did not finally determine the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. It concerned whether the property should remain tied up while those claims were unresolved.

The background matters

The proceedings arose from losses connected to the Samji investment fraud. Earlier litigation against the plaintiffs’ accountant had initially been dismissed. Newly obtained documents then led to a mistrial order and a new trial; that new trial had not taken place.

In separate proceedings begun in 2019, the plaintiffs challenged a transfer of a residence and claimed an interest through trust and fraudulent-conveyance allegations. They registered a CPL on the property. After responses were filed in 2020, the action was not meaningfully advanced for years.

The registered owner applied to cancel the CPL under section 252 of the Land Title Act. It was undisputed that no step had been taken in the proceeding for more than a year.

Why the court removed the CPL

The court found the lengthy delay insufficiently explained. Litigation fatigue and changes of counsel did not justify maintaining the registration for close to seven years; the pandemic explained only a limited portion of the delay. The lack of progress in the related underlying proceeding was also significant.

The judge weighed the explanation, prejudice, prospects of success and overall interests of justice. Importantly, the CPL was not removed because the court found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The plaintiffs remained free to pursue them.

The court also cautioned against treating the two defendants’ conduct as interchangeable. An allegation against one person does not establish wrongdoing by their spouse or another property owner.

A CPL is not ordinary debt security

A CPL protects a claimed interest in land while litigation is decided. It is not a general device to reserve someone’s property for payment of any future damages award. Whether a claim supports registration requires its own legal analysis.

The test for cancelling a CPL for inactivity is also different from the test for dismissing an entire lawsuit for delay. Losing the registration does not necessarily end the action, but it can materially change the practical position while the case continues.

Practical lessons for recovery claims

  • Identify the legal basis for any claimed interest in land, rather than relying only on an unpaid loss.
  • Keep a clear timetable for document disclosure, examinations and trial preparation.
  • Explain genuine obstacles promptly and support them with evidence.
  • Assess each defendant’s conduct separately, including any disputed transfer of property.

The decision concerns investment-fraud-related litigation, not immigration fraud. Similar concerns about preserving evidence, identifying defendants and advancing a claim may arise in other recovery cases, but the available remedies depend on the facts.

The takeaway

A potentially serious claim does not excuse leaving a property registration in place indefinitely. Sinclair Centre Law LLP assists with civil recovery and fraud-related disputes in British Columbia. Contact us to assess the underlying claim, possible preservation measures and a practical plan for moving the matter forward.

Sources and next steps