A title search conducted 3 weeks before a scheduled closing revealed complications that neither the prospective purchasers nor their lawyer had anticipated. The property in question was a 2-storey commercial building in a mid-sized city in southwestern Ontario, currently operating as a retail storefront on the ground floor with office space above. The building had been listed for sale at $1.2 million, and 2 business partners operating a professional services firm had negotiated a purchase price of $1.15 million with the intention of relocating their practice to the ground floor while leasing the upper level to generate rental income.

The partners had agreed between themselves to take title as joint tenants, believing this arrangement would simplify matters if one of them died and would reflect the equal contributions each was making to the down payment and ongoing mortgage obligations. Their lawyer, however, had raised questions about whether joint tenancy was appropriate given that each partner also had a spouse and children who might have expectations about the disposition of assets upon death, and given that the firm itself was structured as a professional corporation rather than a true partnership.

The title search disclosed several issues requiring attention. The current registered owner was listed as 3 individuals holding title as tenants in common in unequal shares, the result of a partial interest having been transferred to a family member 8 years earlier following the death of one of the original purchasers. One of those registered owners had died 14 months ago, and while the estate was in probate, no transmission of title had yet been registered. A mortgage registered against the property in 2019 showed a principal amount of $640,000, but the discharge statement provided by the vendor showed an outstanding balance of only $312,000, and the commitment from the purchasers' lender required clear title before advancing funds.

Beyond these ownership and encumbrance questions, the survey and title documents revealed a right-of-way easement benefiting an adjacent property owner, permitting vehicular access across the rear parking area to reach a laneway. A restrictive covenant registered in 1987 prohibited the use of the property for manufacturing or industrial purposes, though this appeared unlikely to affect the intended professional services use. A utility easement in favour of the municipality ran along the eastern property line, and there was some question about whether a storage shed constructed near that boundary 6 years ago encroached upon the easement area. The purchasers needed to understand what these various interests meant for their planned use of the property, what steps were required to resolve the outstanding title issues before closing, and whether the form of co-ownership they had chosen was appropriate for their circumstances.