Skip to content

Mortgage Regulation Act – The New Regime is Here

Brian Tabor, QC, Simon McCormick and Eyoab Begashaw

The Mortgage Regulation Act (“MRA”), in conjunction with the regulations made pursuant thereto (“MRA Regulations”), will come into force on November 1, 2021 and replace the Mortgage Brokers’ and Lenders’ Registration Act. This will create a new regulatory regime to govern mortgage brokerages, mortgage brokers, associate mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders and mortgage administrators (collectively, “Mortgage Professionals”, and each a “Mortgage Professional”) in Nova Scotia.

The legislative and regulatory changes associated with the implementation of the MRA and the MRA Regulations are intended to help protect borrowers, prospective borrowers and private investors, as Mortgage Professionals will now be required to meet certain licensing, reporting, education and record-keeping requirements in order to operate in Nova Scotia.

Licensing

Effective November 1, 2021, Mortgage Professionals will, unless exempted from the requirement under the Mortgage Regulation Act Exemption Regulations (“Exemption Regulations”), be required to obtain a licence issued under the MRA in order to conduct business in Nova Scotia (MRA, s.12(2)). The nature of the business conducted by a Mortgage Professional will determine the type of licence that a Mortgage Professional may be required to obtain in order to comply with the MRA and MRA Regulations, and the MRA provides for the following classes of licence to be issued (MRA, s. 12(1)):

  • Mortgage Brokerage Licence;
  • Mortgage Broker Licence;
  • Associate Mortgage Broker Licence;
  • Mortgage Lender Licence; and
  • Mortgage Administrator Licence.

In order to obtain or renew one of these licences, applicants will need to satisfy the criteria and requirements outlined in the MRA and MRA Regulations (MRA, s. 14(2)). The Mortgage Lender, Brokerage, Broker and Administrator Licensing Regulations (“Licensing Regulations”), in particular, set out a number of requirements that must be met by prospective licensees who wish to acquire, and licensees who wish to renew, particular classes of licences.

A licence issued pursuant to the MRA will expire on October 31 in the calendar year immediately after the year in which it was issued or last renewed (Licensing Regulations, s. 8). All licences will need to be renewed annually, and licensing fees will initially range from $300 to $600.

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(1)).

The Exemption Regulations state that the following persons and entities are exempt from the application of the MRA (Exemption Regulations, s. 3):

  • 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));
  • directors, officers, employees or other representatives of the entities listed above, when acting solely on behalf of such entities (s. 3(e));
  • persons who undertake mortgage brokering or mortgage lending activities, but only if each mortgage related to such activities meets all of the following conditions (s. 3(f)):
    • the amount of the mortgage loan is greater than $1,000,000 (s. 3(f)(i));
    • the Cost of Borrowing Disclosure Regulations do not apply to the mortgage (s. 3(f)(ii));
    • the investors in the mortgage are not private investors or, if one or more of the investors in the mortgage are private investors, licensees or exempted persons broker the mortgages on their behalves (s. 3(f)(iii)).
  • in certain circumstances, persons who refer prospective borrowers to Mortgage Professionals and vice versa (ss. 3(g)-(h), 4); and
  • persons who undertake activities associated solely with syndicated mortgages regulated by the Securities Act (s. 3(i)) (for additional information respecting syndicated mortgages governed by the Securities Act, please see the article entitled “Changes to the Regulation of Syndicated Mortgages under Securities Laws” by Christopher Marr, TEP and David Slipp).

There are also some persons who may, without being exempted from the application of the MRA, be exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence under the MRA. For example, in certain circumstances, practising lawyers, trustees in bankruptcy, persons acting under a court order and people acting on behalf of a provincial government or the federal government may be able to act as a mortgage broker or mortgage administrator without obtaining a licence (Exemption Regulations, s. 7). Similarly, individuals and entities are permitted to act as mortgage lenders without being licenced, provided that they lend their own money, they do not purport to be mortgage lenders, and that, in any 12-month period, they only undertake mortgage lending activities with respect to a maximum of four mortgages that are cumulatively worth not more than $1,000,000 (Exemption Regulations, s. 8(a)).

General Obligations and Standards of Conduct

The MRA and MRA Regulations impose a number of obligations upon Mortgage Professionals, and Mortgage Professionals will, for instance, be required to comply with certain disclosure, reporting, and record-keeping requirements. While some of these requirements are included in the MRA, many of them are outlined in the MRA Regulations, namely the:

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

Mortgage lenders and mortgage administrators will, unless exempted, also be required to designate compliance officers who will be responsible for ensuring that they are complying with the MRA and MRA Regulations and for corresponding with the Registrar (MRA, ss. 25(1), 35(1)).

Further, licensees will be required to comply with the standards of conduct set out in the MRA Regulations. The MRA Regulations include standards of conduct for each class of licensee.

Penalties

Mortgage Professionals who do not comply with the MRA will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction (MRA s. 69(1), (3)). The Registrar may issue an administrative penalty in lieu of a summary conviction; however, an administrative penalty cannot be imposed in addition to a summary conviction in relation to the same contravention of the MRA (MRA s. 72(2)). Decisions and orders made by the Registrar pursuant to the MRA are final and may only be appealed to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia if it is alleged that there has been an error of law (MRA s. 78(1), (2)).

An individual guilty of a summary conviction offence under the MRA may be fined up to $500,000, or sentenced for up to a year in prison, or be both fined and imprisoned (MRA, s. 69(3)(a)). A corporation 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)).

Lastly, the directors and officers of a corporation that has contravened the MRA may be found guilty of an offence if they have authorized, allowed or acquiesced to the contravention, in which case they may be subject to fines and imprisonment, regardless of whether the corporation is prosecuted or convicted (MRA, s. 69(4)).


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Real Property group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top