Skip to content

Client Update: Mortgage Regulation Act – the new regime

Brian Tabor, QC and Simon McCormick

In May 2012, the Nova Scotia Legislature passed the Mortgage Regulation Act (“MRA”). The MRA has not yet come into force, but, when it does, it will replace the Mortgage Brokers’ and Lenders’ Registration Act and, in conjunction with the regulations that will be passed pursuant to the MRA (the “MRA Regulations”), will establish a new regulatory regime for mortgage brokerages, mortgage brokers, associate mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders and mortgage administrators.

The MRA is expected to come into force before the end of 2018. A draft of the proposed MRA Regulations (the “MRA Draft Regulations”) was released in September 2017. This Client Update is based on the MRA and MRA Draft Regulations, which are subject to change pending promulgation.

General Features of the MRA and the MRA Draft Regulations

Licensing

Subject to certain exceptions, mortgage brokerages, mortgage brokers, associate mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders, and mortgage administrators will need to be licensed in order to conduct business in Nova Scotia (MRA, s. 12(2)). Under the MRA, there will be different classes of licences for mortgage brokerages, mortgage brokers, associate mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders, and mortgage administrators (MRA, s. 12(1)), and different rules will apply to licensees who hold different classes of licences.

Applicants will need to satisfy the criteria and meet the requirements outlined in the MRA and the MRA Regulations. The proposed Lender, Brokerage, Broker and Administrator Licensing Regulations (the “Licensing Regulations”), which are included in the MRA Draft Regulations, outline the criteria that prospective licensees or licensees will likely be required to satisfy in order to acquire or renew a particular class of licence.

Licences issued pursuant to the MRA will likely need to be renewed annually. The Licensing Regulations provide that licenses will expire on October 31 in the calendar year following the year in which the licenses were acquired or renewed (Licensing Regulations, s. 8).

Exemptions

The MRA will not apply to persons or classes of persons who are exempted from its application by the MRA Regulations (MRA, s. 3(11)).

The proposed Mortgage Regulation Act Exemption Regulations (the “Exemption Regulations”), which are part of the MRA Draft Regulations, list the persons and classes of persons who will likely be exempted from the application of the MRA. These persons and entities include:

  • banks and authorized foreign banks (s. 3(a));
  • trust and loan companies (s. 3(b));
  • cooperative credit associations (s. 3(c));
  • insurance companies (s. 3(d));
  • provided that certain conditions are met, persons who refer prospective borrowers to mortgage professionals and vice versa (ss. 3(g)-(h), 4); and
  • persons who undertake mortgage brokering or mortgage lending activities with respect to mortgages that are each worth more than $1,000,000, provided that:
    • the Cost of Borrowing Regulations do not apply to the mortgages;
    and
    • the investors in the mortgages are not private investors or, if one or
    more of the investors in the mortgages are private investors,
    licensees or exempted persons broker the mortgages on their behalf
    (s. 3(f)).

The Exemption Regulations also suggest that there will be a number of partial exemptions. In certain circumstances, for instance, lawyers, trustees in bankruptcy, and other persons will likely be able to act as mortgage brokers or mortgage administrators without being licensed (Exemption Regulations, s. 5). Individuals or entities will also likely be able to act as mortgage lenders without being licensed provided that they lend their own money and that, in any 12 month period, they undertake mortgage lending activities with respect to four or fewer mortgages that are cumulatively worth less than $1,000,000 (Exemption Regulations, s. 6(a)). Finally, credit unions will likely be able to act as mortgage lenders without being licensed (Exemption Regulations, s. 6(b)). However, as these are partial exemptions, many of the provisions of the MRA and the MRA Regulations will still apply to persons who are partially exempted from the application of the MRA and the MRA Regulations.Disclosure, reporting, record-keeping and standards of conduct

When the MRA comes into force, people and entities that employ mortgage brokers, broker mortgages, provide mortgage loans, or administer mortgages will be required to comply with numerous disclosure, reporting, and record-keeping requirements. While some of these requirements are included in the MRA, many of them are outlined in the MRA Draft Regulations, namely the:

  • General Disclosure Regulations;
  • Cost of Borrowing Disclosure Regulations;
  • Reporting Requirements Regulations; and
  • Record-keeping Requirements Regulations.

In addition, licensees will be required to comply with prescribed standards of conduct. The MRA Draft Regulations include standards of conduct for each class of licensee.

Penalties

After the MRA comes into force, it will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with the MRA, the MRA Regulations, or an order given by the Registrar (MRA, s. 69(1)). Administrative penalties may be imposed by the Registrar in lieu of charging someone with a summary conviction offence (MRA, s. 72(2)).

An individual who is found guilty of a summary conviction offence under the MRA may be ordered to pay a fine of up to $500,000, be imprisoned for up to one year, or be both fined and imprisoned (MRA, s. 69(3)(a)). A corporation that is found guilty of an offence under the MRA may be ordered to pay a fine of up to $1,000,000 (MRA, s. 69(3)(b)). Finally, directors and officers of a corporation may be convicted of an offence if the corporation has violated the MRA or the MRA Regulations (MRA, s. 69(4)).

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top