Accursi et al. v. Hongkong Bank of Canada et al., (1997) 43 O.T.C. 90 (GD)

• Judge: Epstein, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: September 02, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 43 O.T.C. 90 (GD)

Accursi v. Hongkong Bk. (1997), 43 O.T.C. 90 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.T.C. TBEd. SE.030

Garry Accursi et al. [names of other parties omitted] (plaintiffs) v. Hongkong Bank of Canada et al. [names of other parties ommitted] (defendants)

(File Nos. 97-CU-123400 and B256/96)

Indexed As: Accursi et al. v. Hongkong Bank of Canada et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Epstein, J.

September 2, 1997.

Summary:

The plaintiffs invested in limited partnerships promoted by Metfin and financed their investments with loans from the defendant banks. The limited partnerships failed following the real estate market collapse. Many plaintiffs defaulted on their loans. The banks commenced separate collection actions against these plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued Metfin and the banks, alleging that, inter alia, the banks were liable as agents for Metfin's misrepresentations, for breach of fiduciary duty and for loaning monies with knowledge that the sale of units in the partnerships violated the Securities Act. The banks applied for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as raising no triable issues. The banks also sought judgment in their collection actions.

The Ontario Court (General Division) granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. There was no evidence that the banks acted as agents for Metfin, that the relationship between the banks and plaintiffs was other than a creditor-debtor relationship (i.e., no fiduciary duty) or that any Securities Act violations (if there were any) were done with the banks' knowledge. None of the issues raised by the plaintiffs raised genuine issues for trial. The court held that the banks were entitled to judgment in the collection actions.

Agency - Topic 323

Creation of relations - Parties - Who constitutes an agent - See paragraphs 35 to 41.

Banks and Banking - Topic 741

Duties of banks - Fiduciary relationships - General - See paragraphs 50 to 55.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - See paragraphs 14 to 17.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Bar to application - Existence of issue to be tried - See paragraphs 14 to 55.

Practice - Topic 5715.1

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Burden on respondent - See paragraphs 18 to 22.

Practice - Topic 5719

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - See paragraphs 14 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Bossé v. Mastercraft Group Inc. et al., [1994] O.J. No. 941 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 185, affd. (1996), 196 N.R. 239; 88 O.A.C. 157 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Izukawa, [1994] O.J. No. 1157 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Datile Financial Corp. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 358 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Wulffhart (1996), 10 C.C.L.S. 225 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Sun Life Trust Co. v. Kitchener-Highland II Partnership et al. (1996), 19 O.T.C. 305 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

ITN Corp. v. ACC Long Distance (1992), 9 O.R.(3d) 447 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

Ruiter Engineering and Construction Ltd. v. 441734 Ontario Ltd. et al. (1986), 23 C.L.R. 287 (Ont. H.C.), varied (1989), 35 O.A.C. 230; 32 C.L.R. 287 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Traders Finance Corp. v. Nadon, [1967] 2 O.R. 112 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Bank of Montreal v. Casa (1975), 10 O.R.(2d) 274 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Ascu Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Dunster (1990), 75 O.R.(2d) 490 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Shoppers Trust Co. v. Dynamic Homes Ltd. (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 361 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Standard Investments Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1985), 11 O.A.C. 318; 52 O.R.(2d) 473 (C.A.), affd. (1986), 65 N.R. 78; 15 O.A.C. 237; 53 O.R.(2d) 662 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Slaunwhite (1995), 10 C.C.L.S. 25 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, G.H.L., Law of Agency (4th Ed. 1976), pp. 107 to 114 [para. 36].

Counsel:

L. Vandor, Q.C., and S. Bertrand, for the plaintiffs;

S. Peppall, for the Royal Bank of Canada;

M. Kennedy, for the Hongkong Bank of Canada;

J. Seigel, for the Bank of Montreal;

E. Ackman, for the Toronto-Dominion Bank and Sun Life Trust.

These motions were heard on June 19, 20 and 23, 1997, before Epstein, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), whose following judgment was endorsed on the record and released on September 2, 1997.