Key Takeaways Every Real Estate Lawyer Needs to Know Heading Into 2026

Anisa Rita
Nov 17
4 min read

Updated: 10 hours ago

If you have ever found yourself troubleshooting a registration issue at the 11th hour or explaining to a puzzled client why their PIN is still linked to a long-gone instrument, then this blog post is for you.

Modern real estate practice demands more than knowing the law. It requires fluency in how the Land Titles system actually functions. From digital certification to section 71 overhauls, the message from the Director of Titles is that lawyers must approach registration with the same legal rigour as any other core transaction. Here is what you need to know to stay ahead.

1. Digital Certification and Automated Approvals

For common registrations, specifically Transfers and Discharges of Charge, the system can now automatically certify instruments without manual review, provided they comply with all business rules. This means many documents may now be certified within seconds. While this speeds up registration, it also underscores the need for accuracy, as you may no longer get a warning before your document is certified (or rejected).

Lawyers should also be aware that email addresses must now be verified in order to register instruments. The Director made clear that unverified accounts will cause delays, errors, or even failures at registration. Ensure all Teraview accounts across your firm are properly updated and linked to a functioning and monitored inbox. More on that here: Teraview Verification Notice

2. Withdrawal Notices Are Now Statutory Events

If you receive an email from LRSB.Withdrawal.Notification@ontario.ca, do not treat it as administrative clutter. These are formal withdrawal notices issued by the Land Registry Services Branch where a document cannot be returned for correction, typically because it was so defective that it should not have been registered in the first place.

Withdrawals may be initiated:

By the examiner, based on legal or procedural concerns;
At the direction of the Director of Titles, in response to a complaint;
When instruments contain unauthorized or misleading statements.

Each withdrawal should be considered a legal event requiring immediate review, possible rectification, and (if appropriate) contact with a title insurer. The certification of your instrument may have been reversed.

3. Refusals and Returns for Correction: Top Offenders

Despite longstanding guidance, the Land Registry continues to return documents for the same recurring errors:

Missing interests in a split;
Incorrect PINs;
Failure to use Statement 6172 for multi-tenant corrections;
Wrong name formats in Discharges (especially for institutional lenders);
Misuse of declarations in survivorship and transmission applications; and
Improper capacity descriptions in the "name" field.

Lawyers must pay closer attention to both the instrument and the supporting law statements. Many refusals stem not from the substance of the transaction, but from misused or inconsistent statutory declarations.

4. Section 71 Notices Are Changing

The Director of Titles has released Bulletin 2025-08, ushering in a new, more structured framework for registering notices under section 71 of the Land Titles Act. These notices, which often relate to unregistered rights like easements, options to purchase, or HST rebates, can affect title for years, yet until now have operated under minimal procedural guidance. As of September 30, 2025, notices must comply with new Director-approved formats, solicitor certifications, and deletion protocols or risk rejection at the point of registration.

The Bulletin makes clear that notices are not informal filings. They are land title instruments with long-term consequences, and going forward, they will require more precision, more documentation, and more accountability. Notices must now be supported by specific solicitor statements (e.g. Statements 61, 62, 2604, or 3880), identify their expiry or deletion criteria, and cannot include hyperlinks, images, or third-party copyright content. "Indefinite" notices, which are often used in cost-sharing or facilities agreements, can now only be deleted by court order or with the written consent of all benefiting parties. With Bulletin 96001 revoked, lawyers should update precedents, checklists, and title review procedures to align with this new standard

5. Guidance Forthcoming

(a) Survivorship and Transmission: Enhanced Scrutiny

The Land Registry Office continues to return documents for correction in the context of survivorships and transmissions. While the Director of Titles has not provided detailed procedural updates, additional guidance is forthcoming, particularly for situations where one of the registered owners is described “in trust.”

Practitioners dealing with trust-related survivorships should be alert to future direction on how these instruments will be reviewed and registered.

(b) Restrictive Covenants and Section 118 Orders

New guidance will be released shortly regarding the registration of restrictive covenants and the use of section 118 orders under the Land Titles Act. While no draft or bulletin has yet been published, the forthcoming materials are expected to clarify both the drafting of covenants intended to bind land and the proper process for imposing or lifting restrictions on the transfer or disposition of land under section 118.

6. Version 13 of the Electronic Registration Procedures Guide

A significant development this year is the release of Version 13 of the Electronic Registration Procedures Guide, which consolidates previously scattered bulletins and policy memos. It includes updates to the registration of easements, certificates of pending litigation, corporate capacity, discharges by enforcement, and survivorships involving partial interests.

The guide also incorporates revised practice points to align with updated statutory statements and is now intended to be the central reference point for all registration procedures going forward.

Conclusion: A More Demanding Land Titles Landscape

As the Land Registry Services Branch continues to modernize Ontario’s title system, practitioners must keep pace with a shifting and increasingly rigorous regulatory environment. From digital certification and updated survivorship practices to the elimination of outdated s. 71 notice procedures and forthcoming bulletins on restrictive covenants, 2025 signals a clear trend toward greater scrutiny, clearer expectations, and less tolerance for error.

For real estate lawyers, these developments are professional imperatives. Whether managing a split transfer, deleting encumbrances under power of sale, or navigating name formats under s. 67, precision is no longer optional. It is time to update precedents, retrain staff, and treat registration as a legally certified event that binds title, risk, and liability.