The granting of a charge under Rule 625 is discretionary, and a charge should not be given if it seems unfair to give it: Royal Bank v. Laughlin, 2001 CarswellAlta 402, 2001 ABCA 78, 277 A.R. 201, 242 W.A.C. 201. In my view, it would be unfair to grant charging orders in situations such as this, as the result would be a ‘one way street’. If a debtor’s lawyer successfully opposes a lender’s application for a judicial sale, and the property later sells for less, is the debtor’s lawyer liable for the loss? I think not. So how would it be fair to award a charging order in the opposite situation, that is, when the property later sells for more? Costs might have been appropriate at an earlier stage
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.