Caisse Populaire de Morinville Savings and Credit Union Ltd. v. Den-Lou Holdings Ltd., (1982) 47 A.R. 363 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 47 A.R. 363 (QBM)

Caisse Pop. v. Den-Lou Holdings Ltd. (1982), 47 A.R. 363 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Caisse Populaire de Morinville Savings and Credit Union Ltd. v. Den-Lou Holdings Ltd.

(8103-29338)

Indexed As: Caisse Populaire de Morinville Savings and Credit Union Ltd. v. Den-Lou Holdings Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

January 29, 1982.

Summary:

After a company went into bankruptcy a chattel mortgagee applied for the removal and sale of various chattels. The two issues were the priority between the chattel mortgagee and the bankrupt's landlord and the validity of the chattel mortgage.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the landlord was not a secured creditor and was not entitled to priority over the chattel mortgagee and that chattels seized by the landlord vested in the trustee. The Master ruled that the omnibus charging clause of the chattel mortgage was valid, notwithstanding that it specified no location of the chattels.

Bankruptcy - Topic 3923

Secured creditors - Persons who are not secured creditors - Landlord - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a landlord is not a secured creditor and takes no priority over a chattel mortgagee - The Court held that goods seized by the landlord for rent owing vest in the trustee in bankruptcy - See paragraphs 14 to 25.

Chattel Mortgages and Bills of Sale - Topic 1183

Validity - Essential elements - Description - Sufficiency of - Omnibus charging clause - Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. B-5, s. 4 - A chattel mortgage mortgaged "all the goods and chattels ... which are now ... in ownership or possession of" the mortgagors - No location of the goods was specified - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that such an omnibus charging clause was valid, notwithstanding the lack of a specified location - See paragraphs 26 to 86.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Credit Trust Association Ltd. v. Beaver Trucking Ltd., [1959] S.C.R. 311, appld. [para. 14].

Radioland Limited, Re (1957-58), 36 C.B.R. 158, appld. [para. 15].

Syndicat de Quebec Ltee. v. Barrette, 6 C.R.R. (N.S.) 310, refd to. [para. 17].

Gingrass Automobile Ltee., Re, 34 D.L.R.(3d) 751, appld. [para. 18].

Stott v. Heninger, [1935] S.C.R. 408, consd. [para. 24].

Melton Real Estate Ltd. v. National Arts Services Corporation Ltd. (1977), 6 A.R. 577; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 180, consd. [para. 24].

Profoot Enterprises Ltd., Re, 31 A.R. 420, consd. [para. 24].

Traders Group v. Smith (1976), 66 D.L.R.(3d) 153, appld. [para. 33].

O'Brien v. Stebbens, [1927] 2 W.W.R. 176, appld. [para. 37].

T & C Track Service and Welding Ltd. v. Henning (1981), 30 A.R. 164, appld. [para. 38].

McCall v. Wolff (1884), 13 S.C.R. 130, consd. [para. 41].

Hovey v. Whiting (1886), 14 S.C.R. 515, consd. [para. 47].

Thomson v. Quirk (1889), 18 S.C.R. 695, consd. [para. 57].

Harris v. Commercial Bank, 16 U.C.Q.B. 437, consd. [para. 59].

Edwards v. T.N. Boulton (1914), 7 W.W.R. 217, consd. [para. 62].

House of Light Limited v. Matheson (1974), 19 C.B.R. (N.S.) 35, consd. [para. 64].

Royal Bank v. MacKenzie, [1932] S.C.R. 524; [1932] 2 D.L.R. 12, appld. [paras. 66, 85].

O'Hanlon v. Cockx, [1936] 2 W.W.R. 373, consd. [para. 76].

Blower v. Hepburn, 13 Alta. L.R.(2d) 100, consd. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-3, sect. 50(1), sect. 50(5), sect. 51(2), sect. 51(4), sect. 107(1)(f), sect. 117 [para. 13].

Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. B-5, sect. 1(e) [para. 31]; sect. 4 [paras. 33, 40]; sect. 9 [para. 33].

Conditional Sales Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. C-21, sect. 4 [para. 33].

Counsel:

J.M. McCabe, for the applicant;

A.J. Trevoy, for the trustee;

R. Biamonte, for the landlord.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Master in Chambers Funduk of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 29, 1982: