Clayborn Investments Ltd. v. Wiegert, (1977) 5 A.R. 50 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 20, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 5 A.R. 50 (CA);1977 ALTASCAD 164;77 DLR (3d) 170;3 Alta LR (2d) 295;5 AR 50

Clayborn Inv. Ltd. v. Wiegert (1977), 5 A.R. 50 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Clayborn Investments Ltd. v. Wiegert

Indexed As: Clayborn Investments Ltd. v. Wiegert

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Clement, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.

June 20, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a loan by the plaintiff to the defendant of $5,500.00. The debt was secured by a promissory note and a real estate mortgage. The borrower defaulted. The lender foreclosed on the mortgage and sold the real estate. The proceeds of the sale of the real estate left $2,240.21 owing on the original debt of $5,500.00. The lender then commenced an action on the promissory note for the deficiency. In defence the borrower alleged that the debt was satisfied by the foreclosure of the mortgage by virtue of s. 34 of the Judicature Act and s. 109(1) of the Land Titles Act. The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the lender's action and rejected the defence raised by the borrower.

On appeal of the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Division was set aside. The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the statutes raised in defence were applicable because the obligation under the note and the mortgage were the same.

Mortgages - Topic 5512

Mortgage actions - Action for foreclosure and sale - Effect of a foreclosure order on the debt of the mortgagor - Judicature Act, s. 34 - Land Titles Act, s. 109(1) - The plaintiff lent $5,500.00 to the defendant borrower - The debt was secured by a promissory note and by a real estate mortgage - The borrower defaulted and the lender foreclosed on the real estate mortgage and sold the real estate - The proceeds of the sale left $2,240.21 owing on the original debt of $5,500.00 - The lender commenced an action on the promissory note for the deficiency and the borrower alleged that the debt was satisfied by the foreclosure of the mortgage by virtue of s. 34 of the Judicature Act and s. 109(1) of the Land Titles Act - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the lender's action for the deficiency of $2,240.21 - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the statutes raised in defence were applicable because the obligation under the note and the mortgage were the same - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the statutes were applicable regardless of a clause in the mortgage repugnant to the statutes.

Cases Noticed:

Traders Group Ltd. v. Fulkerth (1972), 25 D.L.R.(3d) 452, refd to. [para. 3].

Allison v. McDonald (1893), 23 S.C.R. 635, folld. [paras. 9, 53].

Rushton v. Industrial Development Bank, [1973] S.C.R. 552, folld. [para. 9].

Loose v. Spruce Holdings & Investments Ltd. (1971), 14 D.L.R.(3d) 201; [1971] 1 W.W.R. 121; affd. [1972] 2 W.W.R. 632, dist. [para. 9]; refd to. [para. 41].

Krook et al. v. Yewchuk et al., [1962] S.C.R. 535; 39 W.W.R. 13, dist. [para. 10]; refd to. [paras. 24, 28].

Edmonton Airport Hotel Co. Ltd. et al. v. Credit Foncier Franco-Canadien et al., [1965] S.C.R. 441; 51 W.W.R. 431, refd to. [paras. 10, 31].

British American Oil Co. Ltd. v. Ferguson (1951), 1 W.W.R.(N.S.) 103, refd to. [para. 11].

Ross et al. v. Haines (1966), 55 W.W.R. 376, dist. [para. 28].

Kostiw v. Hardwardt (1959), 28 W.W.R. 465, refd to. [para. 28].

Stiles v. Guy, 160 E.R. 1137, refd to. [para. 35].

Jones v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1895] 1 Q.B. 484, folld. [para. 35].

Martin v. Strange et al., [1943] 2 W.W.R. 123, refd to. [para. 47].

Commercial Life Assoc. Co. v. Debenham, [1940] 3 W.W.R. 592, refd to. [para. 47].

Monetary Advance Company v. Cater (1888), 20 Q.B.D. 785, folld. [para. 52].

Kinnaird v. Trollope (1888), 39 Ch.D. 636, refd to. [para. 58].

Walker v. Jones (1865), 3 Moore N.S. 397, refd to [para. 59].

Lockhart v. Hardy (1846), 9 Beav. 349; 50 E.R. 378, refd to. [para. 59].

Standard Bank of Canada v. Alberta Engineering Co. Ltd., [1917] 1 W.W.R. 1177, refd to. [para. 62].

Atlas Lumber Co. Ltd. & Winstanley v. A.G. of Alberta, [1940] 2 W.W.R. 437; [1941] 1 D.L.R. 625, refd to. [para. 62].

Kiloran v. Monticello State Bank (1921), 61 S.C.R. 528, refd to. [para. 62].

Avco Ltd. v. Bradley, [1969] 1 D.L.R. 240, refd to. [para. 62].

Traders Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Casselman (1958), 25 W.W.R. 289; [1960] S.C.R. 242, folld. [para. 65].

Saskatoon White Truck Sales Ltd. v. Stolz (1966), 57 D.L.R.(2d) 665, folld. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 193, sect. 34(17), sect. 34(18) [para. 7].

Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 198, sect. 109(1) [para. 7].

Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-5, sect. 56(1), sect. 74 [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, p. 581 [para. 46].

Blackstone's Commentaries, p. 464 [para. 46].

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary [para. 46].

Words and Phrases, Vol. 2, p. 396 [para. 46].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3d Ed.), Vol. 3, p. 228 [para. 64].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), Vol. 4, p. 204 [para. 64].

Counsel:

M.S. Brett and L. Irwin, for the appellant;

Ms. J. Majeski, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by CLEMENT, HADDAD and MORROW, JJ.A. The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered at Edmonton, Alta., on June 20, 1977 and the following opinions were filed:

CLEMENT, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

MORROW, J.A. - see paragraphs 18 to 68.

HADDAD, J.A., concurred with CLEMENT, J.A.