Title Insurance in BC: What It Covers, and What It Will Not Pay For

Title insurance in British Columbia does not insure your house. It insures your title — the state of the public register — and it pays money when a problem with your ownership costs you something. It will not pay for a leaking roof, a failed furnace, a septic system that was rebuilt badly, or anything your home inspector already found.

That gap between what buyers think they are getting and what the policy actually says is the whole subject of this article. BC also starts from an unusual place: your title here is already guaranteed by the Province’s land title system, with a public fund behind it. So the real question is not “should I protect my title” — it is “which of these specific risks am I buying cover for, and which am I keeping”.

What title insurance actually is, and what it is not

Title insurance is a one-time-premium policy that pays you if a defined problem with your ownership causes you a loss. The problems it names are register problems: someone else owning an interest, a forged document, an unregistered easement, a lien left by the previous owner.

The regulator describes it the same way. In its practice resource Items Affecting a Property, published 6 April 2021, the BC Financial Services Authority writes that title insurance “covers against losses sustained due to the condition of the title being other than as registered with the Land Title and Survey Authority”.

Read that twice. It insures the register, not the building. One insurer puts the point more bluntly than any realtor could. On its residential owner policy page, Stewart Title writes:

Title insurance is not a home warranty product. It does not guarantee that the house and other improvements located on the property are well built.

And, on the same page: “Title insurance does not insure that appliances and home systems (HVAC etc.) will function properly or that structures constructed on the property comply with prior or current building code requirements.”

That last clause matters more than it looks, and I come back to it below. A building that does not meet code is not, by itself, a title problem.

Start here: in BC your title is already guaranteed

Most writing about title insurance is imported from the United States, where buyers have good reason to worry about the chain of title. British Columbia works differently, and almost nothing you will read locally explains it.

BC uses a land title register in which registration itself creates the ownership. Under section 23(2) of the Land Title Act — current to October 13, 2026 — an indefeasible title “is conclusive evidence at law and in equity, as against the Crown and all other persons”, that the registered owner is entitled to the land. Adverse possession is abolished. Nobody can turn up with an older deed.

But that guarantee is not absolute. Section 23(2) says the title is conclusive “subject to” a list, and the list runs from paragraph (a) to paragraph (j). Ten exceptions, written into the guarantee itself. Here is what they mean for someone buying a house.

Exception in s.23(2)	What it means when you buy
(a) Conditions and reservations in the original Crown grant	Old Crown terms, including royalties, still bind the land.
(b) Federal or provincial tax, rate or assessment	A government lien can attach, including after your registration.
(c) Municipal charge, rate or assessment	Unpaid city charges follow the land — even ones imposed after you register. See below.
(d) A lease of 3 years or less with actual occupation	An occupied short lease beats your clean title. Ask who is living there.
(e) A highway, public right of way, watercourse, right of water or other public easement	Public rights over the land survive without appearing as a charge.
(f) A right of expropriation or escheat	The state’s power to take land is untouched.
(g) A caution, caveat, charge, builder’s lien claim, judgment, notice or pending court proceeding	Matters noted on title bind you — and so do ones noted after you register.
(h) Someone’s right to show the boundaries are wrong	The register does not guarantee where your boundaries are.
(i) Someone’s right to show fraud, including forgery, that the owner took part in	A participating owner gets no protection from the register.
(j) A restrictive condition or obligation under the Forest Act, endorsed on title	Relevant to some rural and large parcels.

Paragraphs (c), (d), (g) and (h) are the buyer’s exceptions. Two of them — municipal charges and boundaries — are exactly where title insurance is sold hardest, and that is not a coincidence.

One more asymmetry is worth knowing, because it explains why your lender behaves differently from you. Section 25.1(2) protects a good-faith buyer who registers a void instrument, but only a transferee of “a fee simple estate”. A mortgage is not a fee simple. The register protects the owner more completely than it protects the lender.

The assurance fund, and the numbers nobody prints

Behind the register sits a public compensation fund. There are in fact two, and which one applies depends on the age of the document that caused the loss.

Part 19.1 of the Land Title Act creates the Land Title and Survey Authority assurance fund. BC Laws’ Point in Time record shows sections 294.1 to 294.9 took effect on 20 January 2005. Section 294.12 bars payment from that fund where the loss comes from an instrument registered “before the date this section comes into force”, and Part 20’s section 295.1 bars payment from the older Government Assurance Fund for instruments registered “on or after” it. So the hinge is the date of the document, not the date you discovered the problem.

Now the part that is almost never reported. The fund’s size is public, in the LTSA’s own audited financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2026, audited by KPMG LLP and dated June 19, 2026. Those statements are “(Expressed in thousands of Canadian dollars)”. Note 16 records:

The Assurance Fund reserve was $6.0 million at March 31, 2026 (2025 – $6.0 million). … During the year, $7 was paid (2025 – $73) for settlements.

Because the figures are in thousands, that is $7,000 paid out in settlements across the whole province in the year to 31 March 2026, and $73,000 the year before. The management discussion adds that the fund “has remained at $6.0 million since March 31, 2013 by resolution of the Board of Directors”, and that the balance is set using “actuarial assumptions and methods” on a claims history reaching back to the early 1980s. The last independent analysis was effective March 31, 2022; the next is due in March 2027.

It would be easy to read “$6.0 million for all of BC” as thin protection. That reading is wrong, and getting it wrong is how this subject usually gets written about. Section 294.8 says the Authority “must pay the amount of a claim or judgment in respect of which the fund is liable if there is not at that time a sufficient amount at the credit of the fund”. The fund is a reserve, not a cap. It is small because title fraud and registration error are genuinely rare here — $7,000 of settlements in a year of hundreds of thousands of transactions.

What the fund is not is easy to claim on. This is the honest case for considering insurance, and it is a procedural case rather than a scare story.

What the assurance fund requires	Provision
Serve written notice setting out the particulars of the claim and “fully and fairly all the material facts”, then wait one month before starting anything	s.294.3(1)
Sue the person who actually wronged you; the Authority is joined only as a nominal defendant, and that joinder is a condition of recovering from the fund	s.294.2(2)
Get a final judgment and a court certificate that you took all reasonable steps to collect and could not	s.294.2(4)
Start within three years of discovering the deprivation	s.294.2(7)
Recover no more than the value of the land at the time of the loss, ignoring improvements made afterwards	s.294.61
Accept that boundary misdescription and a shortage in a lot’s area are excluded outright	s.294.6(b)(ii), (d)

Look at the last row. Section 23(2)(h) already carves boundary problems out of the guarantee, and section 294.6 then excludes them from the fund as well. Survey risk sits outside both. That is the clearest reason a BC buyer might want either a survey or a policy — and it is a reason almost nobody states.

What a title search cannot show you

A title search is a snapshot of the register. Some of the money that can follow a property is designed never to appear there.

Unpaid municipal taxes and service fees

Section 250 of the Community Charter, current to October 13, 2026, is headed “Taxes are a special charge on the land”. It says taxes accrued and to accrue, and a judgment under section 231 for them, are a charge that:

(b) has priority over any claim, lien, privilege or encumbrance of any person except the Crown, and (c) does not require registration to preserve it.

Those last six words are the point. The charge outranks nearly everything and is invisible to a title search by statutory design. Section 259 does the same for fees for work done or services provided to the land, in identical language.

Your lawyer or notary deals with this by ordering a tax certificate. Section 249(2) lets any person request one, so you can order your own. But read section 249(3): “An error in a statement or certificate given under this section does not subject the municipality to damages.” If the city’s own certificate is wrong, the city does not owe you for it. That is a real gap, and it is one a policy is sold to fill.

Building work that nobody wrote down

BC does have a mechanism for putting building problems on title. Section 57 of the Community Charter is headed “Note against land title that building regulations contravened”, and it covers the case where “the permit was not obtained or the inspection not satisfactorily completed”.

Nothing about it is automatic. A building inspector may recommend it. The owner gets notice and the matter goes to council. Council may then pass a resolution directing that a notice be filed. Three discretionary gates, and unpermitted work that never passed through them leaves no mark on title at all.

Section 57(6) is stranger still: “The note of a filing of a notice under this section is extinguished when a new title to the land is issued as a result of the deposit of a plan of subdivision or a strata plan.” The note disappears on subdivision or stratification whether or not anything was fixed. A clean title on a newly stratified building is not evidence that the building complies.

This is why the municipal file matters as much as the title. I have written separately about checking a property’s building permit history on the North Shore.

The gap between completion and registration

You pay on completion day, but you are not the registered owner until the land title office registers the transfer. The LTSA says most applications register within 10 to 15 business days, and often in two business days when filed online with the BC Services Card app.

During that window your interest is a pending application with a date and time stamp. Some policies name this gap as a covered risk. The TitlePLUS owner policy, for instance, covers matters “registered or created subsequent to the Policy Date and prior to the date and time of registration of the instrument by which you obtained your interest in your Land”. Others do not mention it in their public coverage lists. It is a fair question to ask about the policy you are offered.

Your policy and your lender’s policy are not the same thing

This is the most common and most expensive misunderstanding, and it has a one-sentence answer. On its page What is title insurance?, Chicago Title Canada writes, under the heading “TO EACH ITS OWN TITLE INSURANCE POLICY”: “The loan policy does not cover owner and the owner policy does not cover the mortgage lender.”

So if your mortgage lender required title insurance and someone told you it was “taken care of”, you may have no cover of your own. Ask whether an owner’s policy was issued in your name.

Then there is the part I did not expect to find. On the two risks buyers worry about most, the lender’s policy is written more broadly than the homeowner’s. FCT publishes a comparison of its own policies, form code 01051E_06 -25, and sets them out side by side.

Risk	Lender’s loan policy	Your homeowner policy
Defects an up-to-date survey would have revealed	Covers them “regardless of the type of property”	Covers them only where they “result in the land being unmarketable” — and not where any part of the property is bound by water, which is underwritten case by case
Structures built without a permit, or open permits	Covers existing structures and improvements constructed after the date of policy	Covers only “forced removal or remedy of an existing structure”

Both differences run the same way. A buyer who knows there is title insurance on the deal because the lender insisted has the narrower half of a policy that does not protect them at all.

Work done without a permit: the question buyers actually ask

Almost every buyer asks some version of this. The basement was finished by somebody; the deck was added at some point; nobody can produce a permit. Does the policy cover it?

The answer is: sometimes, and the test is not the one you would guess. It is not “was a permit obtained”. It is “would a municipal search have revealed the problem on the day the policy was issued”.

Take the clearest published wording. The TitlePLUS sample owner policy, version O-4.0, covers you where you are “forced by a Governmental Authority … to remove or remedy your existing structures”, including where “There is an outstanding work order, notice of violation or deficiency notice”, where “There is an open building permit”, and where the structure “was built without obtaining a building permit from the proper Governmental Authority”. It also covers, at covered risk 27, “Any adverse circumstance affecting the Land which would have been disclosed by a Local Authority Search of the Land as of the Policy Date”.

Then read exclusion 7 of the same policy, in full, because it is the hinge of this whole subject:

The failure of the existing improvement(s) or any part thereof to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice(s) of violation appear(s) in the Public Records, as of the Policy Date or if the existence of the violation would have been disclosed by a Local Authority Search of your Land as of the Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided for any risk covered by items 16(b), (c) and (d), 18, 22, 23(a), (d), (e) and (f), 27, 31 and 34 in the COVERED RISKS section of this Policy.

So bare failure to meet the building code is excluded. The exclusion is then cut back twice: once where the violation is in the public records or would have surfaced in a municipal search, and once for a list of specific covered risks. Note that the first cut-back is about building codes only. It does not mention zoning.

FCT’s homeowner wording lands in the same place from the other direction: it covers forced removal or remedy of a structure built without a permit “that would have been revealed by a building compliance search at the date of policy”. The limit is the search, every time.

This is not new. BCREA said it in Legally Speaking #381, in March 2005, describing cover for renovations done without permits or final approvals as needing both limbs: the owner is forced to remove or remedy the breach, and a records search would have shown a permit with no final approval, or an outstanding work order.

A BC court has applied that limit, and the homeowner lost

In 2024 the Supreme Court of British Columbia decided a title insurance coverage dispute, 2024 BCSC 1216, on exactly this point. A previous owner had rebuilt the property’s septic system in 1995 without permits, in breach of the Building Code. The owner had bought her policy in 2012, with a septic endorsement. The insurer denied the claim on the basis that a local authority search would not have revealed the unpermitted rebuild, and the court found it was entitled to do so.

I want to be careful about how I am using that case. The citation, the date and the outcome are each confirmed in two independent places, including the open case-digest index published by the Continuing Legal Education Society of BC. But the BC courts website does not permit automated access to its judgment database, so I have not read the judgment itself, and nothing above is a quotation from the court. The outcome is as reported in published case digests. I also could not establish whether the decision was appealed.

Even stated that cautiously, the lesson is firm, because the policy wording says the same thing in advance: a policy cannot reach back behind what a search would have shown on the day it was issued.

What is excluded, in plain terms

Exclusions vary between companies, which is itself worth knowing. Here are the ones that appear consistently in the published wordings I read, with the source for each.

Not covered	In the companies’ own words
The physical condition of the building	Stewart Title excludes “Physical/structural conditions or defects regardless of whether or not such conditions/defects affect the value or marketability of the property”
Anything your inspection found	TitlePLUS exclusion 6: “Any matters disclosed in a building inspection report or home inspection report obtained by you prior to the Policy Date”
Bare failure to meet the building code	TitlePLUS exclusion 7, subject to its two cut-backs, quoted above
Environmental problems, including oil tanks, mould and asbestos	TitlePLUS excludes environmental matters “including but not limited to: the existence of a hazardous substance, underground fuel tanks, mold, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, infestations, water quality or quantity”
Risks you created or agreed to, and risks you knew about but did not tell the insurer	TitlePLUS exclusion 5: any risk “created, allowed, accepted or agreed to by you” or “actually known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date, unless disclosed by the Public Records”
Septic function; and for strata, what the Form B told you	Stewart Title lists “Functionality of septic systems” and matters disclosed in strata status certificates and Form B
Government powers and the enforcement of land-use law generally	TitlePLUS exclusion 1 covers governmental power and the existence or violation of building, zoning, land use and environmental law, with its own cut-backs

The oil tank line deserves a flag for North Shore buyers, because buried tanks are a live local issue and no title policy will deal with one. I have written about buried oil tanks in North Vancouver separately.

One structural point about exclusions. Because no BC regulator approves these policy forms, the companies word them differently and can change them. I found real differences: one policy names an open building permit as a covered risk while another’s public list does not; one covers the registration gap explicitly and others are silent; one adds exclusions the others do not publish. “Title insurance covers X” is not a safe sentence. The only reliable answer is in the specific policy, and in its Schedule B exceptions for your specific property.

Known problems: disclose them, do not hide them

You will often read that title insurance does not cover defects you already know about. That is too simple, and the correction comes from BCREA itself.

Its Legally Speaking #442, dated Nov 01, 2010, says in its body that title insurance will generally not cover known title defects. Then its own footnote says: “Title insurers often provide limited coverage to owners over many known defects which are disclosed prior to completion.”

Both are true, and together they are useful. A known problem falls outside the standard cover, but it can often be underwritten if you put it in front of the insurer before closing. Chicago Title says the same on its own page, under the heading “COVERAGE FOR KNOWN DEFECTS”: “Upon underwriting analysis, the owner / purchaser of a real estate property will benefit from coverage during their period of ownership against a claim for a known defect covered by the terms of the title insurance policy.”

The practical advice follows directly, and it is the opposite of what people’s instincts tell them. Tell the insurer what you found. Hiding it is what moves a problem from “possibly insurable” to “excluded”.

There is a related trap. Getting a home inspection does not void a policy, but it converts what the inspector finds from unknown into known. Anything in that report is then outside the cover unless you disclose it and the insurer agrees to write it. Get the inspection anyway — a policy is no substitute for knowing the state of the house. Just do not assume the two overlap. I have written about what a home inspection misses on the North Shore.

Taking insurance instead of a survey: what you give up

Buyers are often offered a policy in place of an up-to-date survey. The regulator confirms lenders treat them as alternatives: BCFSA’s Legal Update 2022 course material says “Mortgage lenders may require buyers of non-strata property to provide either proof of title insurance, or a property survey.”

The Law Society of BC’s Practice Checklists Manual, in its residential conveyance checklist F-1 — current to September 4, 2025 — sets out the order a lawyer is expected to follow. Item 5.8.4 reads, in full:

Survey—Request that the vendor provide any existing survey certificate. If unavailable, advise the purchaser to obtain a survey or consider using title insurance. If they decide not to do so, confirm in writing that risks as to lot size, encroachment, or illegal setback lie with the client, not you. If financing is required by the purchaser, the lender will usually require a survey, title insurance, or a protocol opinion.

I quote the whole item deliberately, because the sequence and the last sentence pull in different directions. The item starts with the survey and treats insurance as what you consider when no survey is available — but it ends by listing a survey, title insurance and a protocol opinion as three things a lender will accept. So it is not fair to say the profession treats insurance as a last resort. It is fair to say the survey comes first in the order of asking.

What is not in dispute is the sentence in the middle: the risks the client keeps are named as lot size, encroachment and illegal setback.

	An up-to-date survey	A title insurance policy
What you get	Information: where the boundaries and structures actually are	Money, if a covered problem causes a loss
When it helps	Before you buy, while you can still renegotiate or walk	After the problem bites — the owner’s trigger is typically being forced to remove or remedy
Boundary and setback problems	Shows them	Owner’s cover is often limited to defects that make the land unmarketable
When you sell	The document stays with the property and can be handed on	Cannot be assigned; your buyer needs their own
Fraud and forgery	No help	A core covered risk, and the register’s own exception (i) leaves a real gap here

My own view, as a realtor rather than a lawyer: they do different jobs, and a policy bought to avoid finding something out is the weakest reason to buy one.

It does not transfer when you sell

The TitlePLUS owner policy is blunt: “This Policy protects you as long as you own your Title. You cannot assign this Policy to anyone else.” Coverage continues for a limited group — someone who inherits, a spouse or child who receives a transfer, certain trusts, and you if you take back a mortgage from your own buyer.

BCREA said the same in Legally Speaking #322, back in May 2000: “the policy does not remain in force for the buyer of the lands or the buyer of the owner’s interest in a take-back mortgage.”

Two consequences. If you are buying, the seller’s policy is worth nothing to you — you need your own. And if you took a policy instead of a survey, you will have that conversation with your own buyer years from now, with no survey to hand them.

Who regulates it, and is it compulsory

Title insurers need a business authorization from BCFSA to write insurance in British Columbia, and they appear on its public register of authorized insurance companies. Federally, they fall within the class of property and casualty insurance companies supervised by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Two details from that register are worth having. There is no separate “title insurance” class — the companies sit under General Insurance, alongside everything from car to commercial cover. And the companies able to write it here include the insurer behind the lawyers’ own title product, which is easy to miss because it is listed under its corporate name rather than its brand.

If you read older material on this, be careful. BCREA’s Legally Speaking #323, from May 2000, says title insurers are regulated in BC by the Insurance Council of British Columbia, including their “policy content”. That is no longer the right description: authorization comes from BCFSA. The Insurance Council still exists and still licenses insurance agents, salespersons and adjusters — it just is not the body authorizing the insurer.

Is it compulsory? I looked for a BC statute, regulation or regulator rule requiring a residential buyer to carry title insurance and found none. I am stating that as an absence rather than a certainty. What makes it feel mandatory is lenders: BCFSA notes that “some lending institutions may require title insurance as a condition of approving a mortgage loan secured by residential property”, and the Law Society checklist treats it as one of three things a lender will usually accept. That is a contractual requirement from your lender, not a legal one from the Province.

One more line from BCREA #442 is still true sixteen years on, and it explains why so many buyers meet this product for the first time at the signing table: there is “no standard industry practice to alert buyers to title insurance availability”.

What I could not confirm

Three things, said plainly, because an article that only reports what it managed to prove is less useful than one that marks its own edges.

• What a policy costs in BC. There is no published or regulator-fixed premium. Every insurer routes you to a quote. BCREA #442 says only that the cost is “generally a one time fee or premium”, “usually determined by the property’s value” and “depends upon the chosen provider”. Rather than print a number I could not source twice, I have left cost out. Ask for the actual premium in writing before you decide.
• The text of the 2024 court decision. As above: citation and outcome confirmed twice, judgment not read, no judicial quotation used, appeal status unknown.
• Whether any BC tribunal has decided a title insurance claim. I searched the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s published decisions and could find none — which is not the same as saying there are none. It would be unsurprising, since the tribunal’s small claims limit is $5,000 and these disputes are far larger.

I will also say what surprised me: BCREA’s newest substantial writing on title insurance for the BC profession is #442, from 2010. For a product now offered in a large share of residential closings, the local guidance is thin and old.

Questions buyers ask

What does title insurance cover in BC?

Problems with your ownership rather than with your building: someone else holding an interest, forgery and fraud, unregistered easements and encroachments, liens and unpaid charges left by the previous owner, and in some policies the gap between closing and registration. The specific list is in the policy, and the lists differ between companies.

Is title insurance worth it in BC?

That depends on which risks you are actually carrying, which is why this article is organised around the risks rather than the product. The strongest reasons in BC are the ones the register itself does not cover: boundary and setback problems, which section 23(2)(h) excludes from the guarantee and section 294.6 excludes from the assurance fund; unpaid municipal charges that never appear on title; and fraud. The weakest reason is to avoid finding something out.

Does it cover work done without a permit?

Often, but the test is whether a municipal search would have revealed the problem when the policy was issued, and the owner’s trigger is usually being forced to remove or remedy the structure. Bare non-compliance with the building code, with nothing in the records, is excluded. That is the limit a BC court applied in 2024.

Does it replace a home inspection?

No, and it is close to the opposite. The policy excludes the physical condition of the building, and it also excludes whatever your inspection report found. Get the inspection.

Is it a one-time cost?

Yes. The insurers describe a single premium paid at closing, with coverage lasting as long as you own the property. There is no renewal.

My lender arranged title insurance. Am I covered?

Probably not. The loan policy protects the lender, and the two policies are separate documents. Ask whether an owner’s policy was issued in your name, and ask to see it.

Can I buy it after I have owned the place for years?

Yes. Insurers sell an existing-owner policy for people who did not buy one at closing. Expect the cover to be tied to the state of things when you bought, and expect anything you already know about to need disclosure.

Before you decide: what to ask, and who to call

Four questions to put to whoever is offering you the policy, in writing:

1. Is this an owner’s policy in my name, a lender’s policy, or both?
2. Does it cover the period between completion and registration of my transfer?
3. What is on Schedule B for this property — the exceptions specific to my title?
4. I know about the following issues. Will you insure them if I disclose them now?

Then do the work the policy cannot do for you. Order the tax certificate. Ask the municipality about permits, outstanding orders and anything noted against the property, early and again before you remove subjects. Municipal information changes, and only the municipality can tell you its current position.

• City of North Vancouver — 604-985-7761, 141 West 14th Street. Planning: planning@cnv.org. Oil tank records sit with the fire department: fire@cnv.org or 604-980-5021.
• District of North Vancouver — 604-990-2311, District Hall, 355 West Queens Road. Permits and planning route through 604-990-2480; building@dnv.org and infoweb@dnv.org.
• West Vancouver — 604-925-7000, Municipal Hall, 750 17th Street. Permits and Inspections 604-925-7040. A written Comfort Letter about a property’s permit history comes through plans@westvancouver.ca. The District’s own form warns that a general request produces a general letter “which could omit a specific concern”, so ask your specific question.

And read the policy you are handed. Every one of these companies says the same thing in its own material: the document that governs is the policy actually issued to you.

Read next

• A covenant on title in BC: what it means for a buyer
• Lawyer or notary for a BC home purchase?
• How to check a building permit history in North Vancouver
• Older North Shore homes: what to check before you buy
• Buried oil tanks in North Vancouver
• All North Shore buying and selling guides

این مقاله را به فارسی بخوانید — بیمهٔ مالکیت در بریتیش کلمبیا

General information only, and not advice about a specific property, policy or transaction. I am a licensed REALTOR®, not a lawyer, a notary or an insurance adviser. Nothing here is a quotation from any court. Coverage, exclusions, statutes, fees and municipal practice all change, and the policy actually issued to you governs — so confirm anything that matters with the authority or company that owns it: the insurer for its policy terms, the Land Title and Survey Authority for the register, your municipality for permits and taxes, and a lawyer or notary for advice on your own purchase. Every figure and quotation here was verified at its primary source on 21 October 2026, and verified again in a separate pass. Last reviewed: October 2026.

Written by Tom Jahed, licensed REALTOR®, Vanak Realty, North Vancouver.