Torrens Land Registration System Definition:

In the Torrens system, a land title certificate suffices to show full, valid and indefeasible title.

A stated in Manor Investments v Ross,borrowing from Fels v Knowles (New Zealand):

"The Torrens system provides a state guarantee of registered interests and an assurance fund to compensate owners whose interests are (for example) defeated due to an error made at the Land Titles Office.

The cardinal principle ... is that the register is everything, and that, except in cases of actual fraud on the part of the person dealing with the registered proprietor, such person, upon registration of the title under which he takes from the registered proprietor, has an indefeasible title against all the world. Nothing can be registered the registration of which is not expressly authorized by the statute. Everything which can be registered gives, in the absence of fraud, an indefeasible title to the estate or interest."

Used in Australia and several Canadian provinces (such as BC).

In Aujla, Justice Harris used these words:

"British Columbia uses the Torrens system for registering interests in real estate. (Provincial law) stipulates that an indefeasible title, as long as it remains in force and uncancelled, is conclusive evidence at law and in equity, as against the Crown and all other persons, that the person named in the title as registered owner is indefeasibly entitled to an estate in fee simple to the land described in the indefeasible title...

"It is settled law, however, that the statutory presumption that registered title is conclusive evidence of the ownership of legal and beneficial interests can be rebutted in some circumstances. It may be rebutted by the operation of the presumption of resulting trust, where there is an agreement between the parties that is contrary to the registered title, or to take account of the underlying equitable interests between the parties."

REFERENCES:

• Aujla v. Kaila, 2010 BCSC 1739
• Fels v Knowles, 1906 26 NZLR 604 (1906)
• Manor Investments v Ross, 31 RPR 3d 104 (ABQB, 2000)