Publications

A Penalty by Any Other Name: Supreme Court of Canada Says Interest Rate Increase Triggered by Default, Whatever It’s Called, Infringes the Interest Act in Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.

Published:

May 9, 2016

On May 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a mortgage imposing a higher interest rate in the event of default and reserving a lower rate in the event of no default – whether it’s called an incentive, a penalty or a rose – contravenes section 8 of the Interest Act, and is void. The decision doesn’t mean that a mortgagee or lender can’t offer a borrower an interest rate discount or some relief – but it does mean it must be very careful when drafting it. A mortgage lender that wants to give its clients and borrowers some type of interest rate discount that complies with section 8 must ensure the effect of the performance incentive doesn’t increase the charge on the arrears beyond the rate of interest payable on principal money not in arrears.

In Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co. The mortgagor granted the lender a mortgage at an interest rate of prime plus 2.875% per annum to secure a $27M loan. The parties subsequently entered two mortgage renewal agreements. The first, effective August 1, 2008, extended the mortgage term by seven months and provided for interest to be calculated at prime plus 3.125% per annum over the first six months of the term, and then 25% per annum over the seventh month. The second, effective February 1, 2009 but retroactive to one month before the first renewal agreement’s expiry, provided for:

Interest to be calculated at 25% per annum.
The borrower to pay monthly interest at the “pay rate” of either 7.5% or prime plus 5.25% – not the stated per annum rate of 25% – and for the difference between the amounts payable at the 25% rate and that at the lower rate to “accrue” to the loan.
If the borrower didn’t default, the lender would forgive this “accrued interest”.

On May 15, 2009, the mortgagor defaulted on the loan; the lender demanded repayment at the rate of 25% per annum. The mortgagor resisted on the basis the mortgage terms infringed section 8 of the Interest Act (Canada) on two basis: first, by a mortgage agreement term imposing a rate increase effective only where the mortgagor defaults by either failing to make prescribed payments at a lower “pay rate” of interest or by paying out the loan upon maturity; or by providing for a higher interest rate triggered solely by mere passage of time. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (six to three justices) ultimately decided the term is void and left the lender with a much lower rate of interest:

Substance over form. In an analysis of section 8 of the Interest Act, what matters is the effect – not the label (whether “interest rate” or “pay rate”) – of the charge. The purpose of section 8 is to protect landowners from charges “that would make it impossible for [them] to redeem, or to protect their equity”. It prohibits a lender from stipulating for, taking, reserving or exacting three classes of charges – fines, penalties and interest rates – if the effect is to impose a higher charge on arrears than that imposed on the principal not in arrears. And it applies to discounts (incentives for performance) as well as to penalties for non-performance whenever the effect – regardless of the label – is to increase the charge on the arrears beyond the rate of interest payable on principal not in arrears.

A rate increase – whatever it’s called – triggered by default is void. A term imposing a rate increase triggered by default infringes section 8, whether it’s cast as imposing a higher rate penalizing default or as allowing a lower rate as a reward for the absence of default. The Court decided the effect of the 25% per annum interest rate under the second renewal mortgage in this case was to reserve a higher charge on arrears than that imposed on principal money not in arrears, and is void. The Court set the rate at the higher of 7.5% and prime plus 5.25%.
Time doesn’t change things. A rate increase triggered by the passage of time alone doesn’t infringe section 8 of the Interest Act.

This decision doesn’t mean that a mortgage lender can’t offer a borrower an interest rate discount or some relief – but it does mean it must be very careful when drafting it. Mortgages imposing a higher interest rate in the event of default and reserving a lower rate in the event of no default – whether it’s called an incentive, a penalty or a rose – contravene section 8 of the Interest Act, and will thus be void. A mortgage lender that wants to ensure it complies with section 8 while providing its clients and borrowers with some type of interest rate discount, can only do so if the effect of the performance incentive doesn’t increase the charge on the arrears beyond the rate of interest payable on principal money not in arrears.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Banking & Financial Services Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.

McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2016. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

A Penalty by Any Other Name: Supreme Court of Canada Says Interest Rate Increase Triggered by Default, Whatever It’s Called, Infringes the Interest Act in Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.

Published:

Share

Share

Related Services

Related Industries

Related Publications

Court-Ordered CCAA Super-Priority Charge Can Outrank CRA: 5 Key Take-Aways

Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District: 3 Tips to Exercise Contractual Discretion in Good Faith

C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger: 3 Tips to Honestly Exercise Contract Rights

Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc.: Anti-Deprivation Rule Exists in Bankruptcy Law

Canadian Governance Diversity Disclosure Obligations: Get on Board

Top 5 Legal Considerations When Launching a FINTECH Startup

Michael Melvin in The Franchise Voice | Legal Digest (Spring 2020)

Callidus Capital Corp: Policing CCAA Proceedings

Coping with COVID-19: 3 Legal Remedies for Contractual Liability Risks

Toward More Transparency: 3 More Key Changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)

5 Key FAQs About Canadian Cannabis Company “Key Investor” Disclosure Requirements

“Register for Individuals with Significant Control”: 5 Key Facts CBCA Corporations Need to Know to Comply

Romain Viel in Taxnet Pro™ | Supreme Court of Canada Decides Federal Crown’s Deemed Trust Priority for Unremitted GST/HST Doesn’t Survive Bankruptcy in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation

Incorporating a Business? Incorporating in N.S. Will Soon Be More Attractive

P.E.I. Joins (Most of) the Rest of Canada: 3 Ways the New P.E.I. Business Corporations Act Will Modernize Prince Edward Island Corporations

You’ve Come a Long Way, CBCA: 3 Key Changes Modernize the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)

A Lump of Coal for Christmas: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Auditor Negligent & Liable for $40 Million in Livent v. Deloitte

Is cryptocurrency the right tool for your company to raise capital? 5 FAQs about Initial Coin Offerings (ICO)

Canada’s Private Corporation Tax Proposals: Year End Planning in the Face of Uncertainty

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Cashing Banks Continue to Bear the Biggest Risk of Fraudulent Cheques in Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust

McInnes Cooper’s Romain Viel in Taxnet Pro™ | CRA’s Super Priority Gains Strength: Federal Crown’s deemed trust priority for unremitted GST/HST survives bankruptcy in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation

CRA’s Super Priority Gains Strength: Federal Crown’s deemed trust priority for unremitted GST/HST survives bankruptcy in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation

Cross-Border Caution: 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

Commercial Certainty Trumps Commercial Reality: B.C. Appeal Court Decides Receivers Must Give Written Notice Under Purchase & Sale Contract in KPMG Inc. v. 0747825 B.C. Ltd.

Proposed Changes to Business Income Tax Rules: A Gamechanger for Private Business Owners

Growing Your Business: 3 Structuring Solutions

Like it or Not: Supreme Court of Canada decides class action against Facebook can go ahead in B.C. – despite its terms of use in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

All in the Family: The Family Shareholders’ Agreement

Estate Planning in the Age of Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID)

Cannabis Legalization in Canada: Seeds have sprouted, but the branches are still bare

Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

Follow These 5 Steps for Compliant Disclosure on Social Media

Information Technology (IT) Contracts: 3 Key Lessons for Customers and Service Providers in Atos v Sapient

Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

The law of unintended consequences: Supreme Court of Canada speaks on the rectification of transactions in Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Canada (Attorney General) v. Fairmont Hotels Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada Warns Judgment Creditors: Implied Consent is Enough to Disclose Discharge Statement in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang

NB Court of Appeal Clarifies Mortgage Lenders’ Rights on Default in Keough v. Sandfire Capital Limited Partnership: 5 Steps for NB Mortgage Lenders to Consider

Ontario Follows Suit With Securities Act Changes Tightening the Belt on Insider Trading Regulation

Weighing The Options: 5 Key Considerations When Deciding Between Federal & Provincial Incorporation

NS Dives into Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPP)

Common Ground: Retail & Commercial Condominium Financing

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Income Tax Act Sections are Unconstitutional – and Strengthens Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec & Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson

NS Poised to Take the Plunge into Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs)

5 Key Changes to Early Warning Reporting System Effective May 9, 2016

New Early Warning Reporting System Exemptions for Certain Securities Lending Arrangements Effective May 9, 2016

The Small Business Deduction: Key Proposed Changes & Strategic Solutions

Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

New Kid on the Block: Crowdfunding Joins Traditional Equity-Based Funding Options for Startups & SMEs

The Value of Hindsight – 3 Steps to Help Financial Advisors Avoid Client Claims and Complaints

Thou Shalt Not Lie: SCC Recognizes New Duty of Honesty in Contract Law in Bhasin v. Hrynew

The Top 5 Corporate Governance Best Practices That Benefit Every Company

Legal Update: Share Purchase Transactions – Tips For Lenders

Legal Update: Risky Trading – Insiders and Potential M&A’s

General Security Agreements – Tips and Traps

Franchise Questions: What do I need to know about moving into new markets?

A Closer Look at the Regulations Under the New Brunswick Franchises Act

What are electronic disclosure documents and why and how may they be used?

Stay Updated