registered. In any event, Unimac/BPR did not argue that the error
of Inc. rather than Ltd. materially misled a reasonable person to
vitiate the security interest of Trisura.
 There are two kinds of charging orders. There is the statutory order which is preserved by s. 34 of the Act and there is a
charging lien that is a “manifestation of the inherent jurisdiction
of common law courts and courts of equity”.6
 Section 34 of the Act reads as follows:
Charge on property for costs
34(1) Where a solicitor has been employed to prosecute or defend a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice, the court may, on motion, declare
the solicitor to be entitled to a charge on the property recovered or preserved
through the instrumentality of the solicitor for the solicitor’s fees, costs,
charges and disbursements in the proceeding.
Conveyance to defeat is void
(2) A conveyance made to defeat or which may operate to defeat a charge
under subsection (1) is, unless made to a person who purchased the property
for value in good faith and without notice of the charge, void as against
Assessment and recovery
(3) The court may order that the solicitor’s bill for services be assessed
in accordance with this Act and that payment shall be made out of the
 On charging liens, Perell J. in Thomas Gold Pettingill
LLP v. Anti-Wall Forming Inc. reviewed Henry J.’s decision in
Tots and Teens Sault Ste. Marie (Re)7 and stated:
For present purposes, the three points to note from Justice Henry’s deci-
sion in Re Tots and Teens Sault Ste. Marie about a charging lien made under
the court’s inherent jurisdiction are: first, the charging lien creates the
proprietary interest of a secured creditor; second, subject to being declared,
the charging lien is an inchoate interest that pre-dates the court’s declara-
tion; and third, the charging lien is intrinsically declaratory in nature.8
 Solicitors’ charging orders by a statutory order or a
declaratory order both provide the holder of the order, the solicitor, with a proprietary interest of a secured creditor over the
6 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming Inc., 
O.J. No. 2109, 2012 ONSC 2182 (S.C.J.), at para. 99.
7 (1975), 11 O.R. (2d) 103,  O.J. No. 2549, 1975 CanLII 535 (H.C.J.).
8 Thomas Gold Pettingill, supra, note 6, at para. 101.