In Lukas v. Peden., supra, a council member voted to permit construction of a commercial garage on lands of which the council member was mortgagee. The effect of construction of the garage would naturally have been to increase the value of the security, but the evidence showed that there was ample security in any case. Clement, J.A. said at p.677: "I do not think that, for the present purposes, the position of a mortgagee can be entirely dissociated from that of the mortgagor. No doubt the sum which la charged on the land is fixed, but I think that inevitably the mortgagee retains at least an indirect interest of a pecuniary nature in his security. The endless flow of foreclosure actions supports this view and it is reasonable that a mortgagee would have an interest in a development which affects the value of his security whether to increase it or diminish it."
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.