Move Smartly

The Bank of Canada Remains in Neutral

dave@morplan.ca (David Larock) — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 16:07:18 GMT

The Bank of Canada (BoC) held its policy rate steady last week, as expected

When Your Own Government Outbids You for a Home

john@realosophy.com (John Pasalis) — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:27:16 GMT

Everyone is arguing about whether Ottawa and British Columbia will overpay. That's the wrong debate. Ask instead what it means for a household to be outbid by its own government.

How Will the Bank of Canada React to the Latest CUSMA News?

dave@morplan.ca (David Larock) — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 15:41:41 GMT

When the Bank of Canada (BoC) meets this Wednesday, I expect it to focus on two competing risks which have continued to roughly offset each other.

The GTA Real Estate Market Is Still Bouncing Along the Bottom

john@realosophy.com (John Pasalis) — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:30:00 GMT

GTA Housing Market Update – June 2026

US Decides Not to Extend CUSMA

dave@morplan.ca (David Larock) — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:55:45 GMT

Last week US President Donald Trump decided not to extend the CUSMA agreement for an additional six-years, which would have extended it to 2042.

Having A Mortgage On Title Will Not Stop Home Equity Fraudsters. Only One Thing Can Truly Protect You.

bob@aaron.ca (Bob Aaron) — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 13:50:36 GMT

One of the most persistent myths in Ontario real estate is that homeowners can protect themselves from title fraud by simply registering a mortgage on title to their property.

The theory is that an existing mortgage will make the property less attractive and more difficult for fraudsters to deal with.

Against my advice, I have had clients insist on registering a mortgage in favour of family members in the mistaken belief that it will be a shield against fraud.

That belief is based on a misunderstanding of how modern title fraud works, and how easy it is for fraudsters to impersonate property owners and steal their equity through forged deeds and mortgage discharges.

A published decision of the Law Society Tribunal last month demonstrates how easy it is for fraudsters to steal the title of an unsuspecting homeowner.

In the discipline case against Paul Steve Druxerman, the Law Society of Ontario obtained an interim licence suspension while it investigates mortgage and title fraud transactions.

None of the allegations against the lawyer has been proven. Instead, the Tribunal sought a licence suspension as there were reasonable grounds to believe there was a risk of harm to the public if Druxerman continued to practise while investigations proceeded. The lawyer consented to the suspension but noted his consent did not equate to an admission of the allegations.

Druxerman told the Star he himself was a victim of the scheme and “did not wish for any more harms to occur.”

One case cited by the Tribunal related to a condominium on Gord Vinson Dr. in Courtice, Ont. It was purchased by Precious Reeves in 2022 subject to two new mortgages. In 2025, Druxerman discharged the second mortgage. It is unclear if funds were paid to the lenders.

Two months later another mortgage was registered on the title by a different lawyer and Druxerman discharged the first mortgage. The owner of the lender company said that he did not sign the mortgage payout statement or receive funds following the discharge.

According to the Tribunal decision, Muhammad Zimran and Zineb Talbani, the owners of a different property on Duignan Cr. in Milton, Ont., were living abroad in September 2025, when Druxerman allegedly transferred the property from them to Fotios Vgenopoulos for $2. The owners deny signing the deed.

Druxerman then represented Vgenopoulos on a new private mortgage for $725,000. The proceeds were wired into Druxerman’s trust account, and the Law Society has been unable to trace the money without access to his financial records.

The real owners never received any of the mortgage funds. The allegedly fraudulent deed and mortgage remain registered on title.

The Law Society notes in its decision that Druxerman did not provided his financial records “to allow it to trace his trust funds, contrary to his obligations.”

Druxerman told the Star he had in fact “filed my financial records, but after the tribunal decision. I am cooperating with the investigation.”

The Tribunal decision describes six transactions in total, and demonstrates the sophisticated manner in which the mortgage schemes were structured.

Today’s fraudsters are not interested in owning a property for its own sake. What they want is to gain access to the equity, convert it into cash, and disappear. The mortgage is not an obstacle to the fraud. It is the fraud.

Several of the transactions under investigation by the Law Society involve mortgages that were discharged and replaced with new financing. The existence of original registered mortgages signed by the true owners does not prevent fraudsters from discharging them and transferring title.

Real estate lawyers are often asked whether a homeowner should register a small mortgage in favour of a spouse, child or family corporation to prevent or discourage fraud.

Homeowners have often been advised — even by their own banks — to register a home equity line of credit with a zero balance to protect against fraud.

My answer has always been that neither strategy provides reliable protection against impersonation and title fraud.

If a criminal can impersonate an owner, create false identification, and forge transfer documents, the existence of a legacy mortgage on title will hardly deter the scheme.

Mortgage fraud is essentially an identity crime, and it is impossible to prevent it.

A mortgage on title is not a security blanket.

But title insurance provides a financial remedy when fraud occurs by paying for the costs of restoring title to the true owners and discharging the fraudulent mortgages.

Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer and chair of the Tarion consumer advisory council. He can be reached at bob@aaron.ca . Visit his website at aaron.ca.

Supreme Court’s Silence on Huge New Brunswick Indigenous Private Land Claim Loss Speaks Volumes Across Canada

bob@aaron.ca (Bob Aaron) — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:12:24 GMT

One of the most closely watched Indigenous land claims in Canada took a significant turn last month when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal brought by six Wolastoqey First Nations seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title over approximately half of New Brunswick.

The Indigenous claim area covered roughly 30,000 parcels of Crown land and 252,000 parcels of privately owned lands — roughly half of the province.

The First Nations argued that their Aboriginal title had never been extinguished because the Peace and Friendship Treaties signed in the 1700s did not involve a surrender of land to the Crown.

Last December, in a significant setback to the First Nations, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled that Aboriginal title could not be declared over privately owned lands.

The court found that Aboriginal title and “fee simple” — the highest form of private ownership — are fundamentally inconsistent. Aboriginal title includes rights of exclusive occupation, possession and control.

Those rights conflict with the statutory rights enjoyed today by fee simple owners. According to the court, the two interests cannot coexist over the same parcel of land.

The New Brunswick court decided that if Aboriginal title is ultimately established over lands that have since become privately owned, compensation from the Crown is generally the appropriate remedy. Responsibility for any historic infringement lies with government rather than the current owners.

Justice Ernest Drapeau, on behalf of a three-judge panel, wrote that a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands would be incompatible with the legal rights held by private landowners, and would effectively undermine those interests.

He added that granting Aboriginal title over private lands “would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians.”

The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the Wolastoqey ruling without reasons — as is customary. As a result, the New Brunswick decision presently stands as strong authority that privately owned fee simple lands are not subject to declarations of Aboriginal title.

For property owners, lawyers, real estate agents, lenders, developers and title insurers, the case provides significant reassurance regarding the stability of Canada’s land titles system.

The New Brunswick ruling, which has now been effectively endorsed by the Supreme Court,stands in sharp contrast to the decision of a British Columbia court last Augustwhich ruled that the Cowichan Tribes hold Aboriginal title to as many as 1,846 acres of prime land in downtown Richmond, B.C., owned by the federal government, the City of Richmond, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and numerous private landowners.

The B.C. case upset the traditional certainty of property rights of fee simple ownership system in that province and elsewhere across the country.

The fear that Aboriginal title could override private land ownership came as a surprise to land owners and governments across the country. Within days of the release of the B.C. court ruling, all parties to the Cowichan litigation filed appeals, and the case appeared headed to the Supreme Court on Ottawa.

But now, with the decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal being effectively approved by the country’s highest court, much of the Cowichan ruling has been rendered moot.

In the wake of the Wolastoqey case, private owners get to keep their land in New Brunswick — and presumably in British Columbia and the rest of Canada — while the First Nations are free to pursue their claims for compensation against the Crown for historical infringements of their rights.

Property land owners in the rest of Canada should now be able to rely on the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal of the Wolastoqey ruling. Sometimes the most important Supreme Court decisions are the ones the court never hears. This was one of them.

Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer and chair of the Tarion consumer advisory council. He can be reached at bob@aaron.ca . Visit his website at aaron.ca.

Canadian Mortgage Rate Update: The US/Iran Cease Fire and the Fed’s Hawkish Hold

dave@morplan.ca (David Larock) — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:40:17 GMT

Bond-market investors had their eyes on two key developments last week.

The Bank of Canada’s Balancing Act

dave@morplan.ca (David Larock) — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:26:24 GMT

The Bank of Canada (BoC) held its policy rate steady last week, as expected.

Canadian Employment Springs Higher in May

dave@morplan.ca (David Larock) — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 17:49:43 GMT

Last week Statistics Canada confirmed that our economy added 88,000 new jobs in May, well above the 10,000 expected by the consensus.