Bank of British Columbia v. Turbo Resources Ltd., (1983) 46 A.R. 22 (CA)
| Judge | Laycraft, Kerans and Prowse, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Case Date | June 15, 1983 |
| Citations | (1983), 46 A.R. 22 (CA);1983 ABCA 160;148 DLR (3d) 598;27 Alta LR (2d) 17;46 AR 22;23 BLR 152;[1983] AJ No 873 (QL) |
Bk. of B.C. v. Turbo Resources Ltd. (1983), 46 A.R. 22 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Bank of British Columbia v. Turbo Resources Ltd.
(No. 14674)
Indexed As: Bank of British Columbia v. Turbo Resources Ltd.
Alberta Court of Appeal
Laycraft, Kerans and Prowse, JJ.A.
June 15, 1983.
Summary:
A bank brought an action against a guarantor to recover monies owing under the guaranteed loan. The bank had breached two notice provisions in the guarantee agreement. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment not reported in this series of reports, awarded judgment to the bank. The guarantor appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the breach of the agreement discharged the guarantor from liability under the guarantee.
Guarantee and Indemnity - Topic 2628
Discharge and other defences of surety - Acts of parties - After default by obligor or principal debtor - Failure of creditor to abide by terms of surety contract - A guarantee called for notice of default and notice of any meetings between the creditor and debtor to be given to the guarantor, allowing it to protect its interests - The bank breached the notice provisions - The debtor defaulted and the bank brought an action against the guarantor for monies owing under the loan - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the guarantor was discharged from liability, because the breaches went to the "root of the contract" - See paragraphs 21 to 32.
Cases Noticed:
Nares v. Rowles (1811), 14 East 510; 104 E.R. 697, refd to. [para. 25].
Stothert v. Goodfellow (1832), 1 N. & M. 202, refd to. [para. 25].
Massey-Harris Co. v. Baptiste (1915), 9 W.W.R. 149, refd to. [para. 25].
Midland Counties Motor Finance Co. Ltd. v. Slade, [1950] 2 All E.R. 821 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].
United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd. v. Eagle Aircraft Services, Ltd., [1968] 1 All E.R. 104, refd to. [para. 28].
Bunge Corporation v. Tradax S.A., [1981] 2 All E.R. 513, refd to. [para. 29].
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen-Tangin, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 989, refd to. [para. 30].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Chitty on Contracts (24th Ed.) art. 4848 [para. 26].
Rowlatt on the Law of Principal and Surety (4th Ed.), p. 114 [para. 24].
Counsel:
D. Chernichen, for appellant;
G.R. Meurin, for respondent.
This case was heard before LAYCRAFT, KERANS and PROWSE, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On June 15, 1983, LAYCRAFT, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Giudice v. Thompson,
...In this proposed class action under the Class Proceedings Act , 1992,[1] it is alleged that on March 22 or 23, 2019, the Defendant Paige Thompson hacked the data base of personal information collected by the Defendants Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank ......
-
R v Haevischer,
...with mucus, feces and blood. Mr. Johnston's cell, for months, had no natural light. Both were confined to their cells, alone, for 22 or 23 hours per day, with extremely limited opportunities for visits or contact. In effect, they were cut off from all contact. These conditions caused p......
-
R. v. D.N.S., (2016) 326 Man.R.(2d) 153 (CA)
...that "L." had told her that the accused was his stepfather. L.'s father, E., also lived in the residence. Another resident was A., who was 22 or 23 years old. He had been living with L. when the accused moved into the building, and both A. and L. were friends with the accused's children. In......
-
McAteer v. Devoncroft Developments Ltd.,
...[para. 579]. Heald v. O'Connor, [1971] 2 All E.R. 1105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 579]. Bank of British Columbia v. Turbo Resources Ltd. (1983), 46 A.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 579]. Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. and Fikowski v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490 ; 168......
-
F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51
...[30] After having reviewed the applicable legal principles, the trial judge determined that he should not assume jurisdiction under ss. 22 or 23 of the CLRA or under his parens patriae jurisdiction. He summarized his own findings in respect of the “serious harm” exception in s. 23 as follow......
-
MacCabe v. Board of Education of Westlock Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 110 et al., (1998) 226 A.R. 1 (QB)
...add nothing to the trial proceedings. Counsel for the plaintiff further advised that Danny would testify as to the events of April 22 or 23, 1991 as he was in attendance at Romanuik's class on both days even though his name did not appear on the attendance list (8). Of those in attendance i......
-
R. v. D.N.S., (2016) 326 Man.R.(2d) 153 (CA)
...that "L." had told her that the accused was his stepfather. L.'s father, E., also lived in the residence. Another resident was A., who was 22 or 23 years old. He had been living with L. when the accused moved into the building, and both A. and L. were friends with the accused's children. In......
-
Del Giudice v. Thompson,
...In this proposed class action under the Class Proceedings Act , 1992,[1] it is alleged that on March 22 or 23, 2019, the Defendant Paige Thompson hacked the data base of personal information collected by the Defendants Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank ......
-
Technical Issues Prompt Suspension Of Overseas U.S. Visa Processing
...new applications submitted on or after June 9, 2015. Individuals with visa interview appointments that are scheduled in Canada on June 22 or 23, 2015, are being advised to reschedule their appointments, if they submitted a DS-160 online application after June 9, 2015. However, individuals w......
-
Deal Me Out: Clarifying The Test For Leave In Competition Act Refusal To Deal Cases
...it appears that the line that the Tribunal draws between substantial effect and insubstantial effect lies somewhere in the range from 22 or 23 to 48 percent. This significantly clarifies the meaning of "substantial" under section As well, the Audatex case provides greater clarity on what co......
-
Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, c. 30
...(4), (a) on motion by the guardian in the proceeding in which the guardian was appointed, if the guardian was appointed under section 22 or 27; or (b) on application, if the guardian is the statutory guardian of property. 1996, c. 2, s. 24. Expenditures for person’s beneit (6) Expenditures ......
-
Substitute Decisions Act, 1992
...(4), (a) on motion by the guardian in the proceeding in which the guardian was appointed, if the guardian was appointed under section 22 or 27; or (b) on application, if the guardian is the statutory guardian of property. 1996, c. 2, s. 24. Expenditures for person’s benefi t (6) Expenditur......
-
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1 (S.C. 2016, c. 7)
...36 months; or(b) for whom a benefit period has been established in the previous 60 months and who(i) was paid special benefits under section 22 or 23 during the benefit period,(ii) subsequently withdrew from active participation in the labour force to care for one or more of their new-born ......
-
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (S.C. 2012, c. 19)
...A place, or any part of a place, that has been constituted to be an infected place by the delivery of a declaration under section 22 or 23 ceases to be an infected place when an inspector or officer declares in writing that(a) the disease or toxic substance described in the declaration(i) d......