Conexus Credit Union v. SHEC Labs-Solar Hydrogen Energy Corp., (2004) 250 Sask.R. 104 (QB)

• Judge: Hrabinsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 250 Sask.R. 104 (QB);2004 SKQB 237

Conexus Credit v. SHEC Labs (2004), 250 Sask.R. 104 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.076

Conexus Credit Union (respondent/plaintiff) v. SHEC Labs-Solar Hydrogen Energy Corporation (applicant/defendant)

(2004 Q.B.G. No. 542; 2004 SKQB 237)

Indexed As: Conexus Credit Union v. SHEC Labs-Solar Hydrogen Energy Corp.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Hrabinsky, J.

May 27, 2004.

Summary:

The applicant applied to set aside a pre-judgment garnishee summons issued by the plaintiff credit union and for an order directing that all monies paid into court as a result of the prejudgment garnishee summons be paid to the applicant's solicitors in trust for the applicant.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set aside the garnishee summons where the material filed in support of the garnishee summons did not strictly comply with s. 3 of the Attachment of Debts Act. All monies paid into court were to be paid out to the applicant at the expiration of the appeal period.

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 4252

Garnishment by creditor - Garnishee summons - Setting aside - Grounds - The applicant executed a guarantee as security for a loan made by a credit union to another party - The applicant applied to set aside a prejudgment garnishee summons issued by the credit union and for an order directing that all monies paid into court as a result of the prejudgment garnishee summons be paid to the applicant's solicitors in trust for the applicant - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the material filed in support of the garnishee summons did not strictly comply with s. 3 of the Attachment of Debts Act where there was no evidence that the credit union had declared the principal debtor to be in default, there was no evidence setting forth the terms of the guarantee and there was no evidence that a demand for payment had been made in accordance with the terms of the guarantee - The garnishee summons was therefore set aside and all monies paid into court were to be paid out to the applicant at the expiration of the appeal period.

Cases Noticed:

Royal Bank of Canada v. G.L.B. Holdings Ltd. et al. (1998), 171 Sask.R. 139 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Mumford Medland Ltd. v. Certified Concrete (Central) Ltd. and Royal Bank of Canada (1967), 59 W.W.R.(N.S.) 378 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Deneschuk Homes Ltd. v. Grunert, [1982] 4 W.W.R. 610; 28 Sask.R. 25 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

McMeekin et al. v. Certified Concrete (Central) Ltd. and Royal Bank of Canada (1967), 58 W.W.R.(N.S.) 56 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Rhodes-Vaughan & Co. v. Mini-Mansion Construction Co. and Jamieson, Lavoie & Rourke (1981), 11 Sask.R. 193 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Rolls-Royce Canada Ltd. v. La Ronge Aviation Services Ltd. (1996), 143 Sask.R. 296 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Grotsky et al. (1994), 120 Sask.R. 305; 68 W.A.C. 305; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Attachment of Debts Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A-32, sect. 3 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Wayne L. Pederson, for the respondent/plaintiff;

William P. Langen, for the applicant/defendant.

This application was heard before Hrabinsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on May 27, 2004.