In Feinstein v. Ashford, 2005 BCSC 1379, Madam Justice Dorgan considered s. 20 of the Act in the context of a joint tenancy. There, a joint tenant executed but did not register a Form A Transfer, which purported to sever the joint tenancy and institute instead a tenancy in common. The petitioner argued that the severance of the joint tenancy was not binding, as it failed to meet the common law requirement of delivery (para. 20).

The Court rejected that argument, ruling instead that “the application for re-registration that was executed by the respondent was effective as against himself on the date that it was signed. In other words, the application did indeed sever the joint tenancy on the date that it was signed, even though it was not registered until after the respondent’s death” (emphasis added) (para. 27).

 

This was recently followed in Plecas v Plecas 2015 BCSC 464

The result is that the application for re-registration that was executed by the respondent was effective as against himself on the date that it was signed.  In other words, the application did indeed sever the joint tenancy on the date that it was signed, even though it was not registered until after the respondent’s death.