Continental Bk. v. Adena Inv. Ltd., (1984) 4 O.A.C. 136 (DC)
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||June 15, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 4 O.A.C. 136 (DC)|
Continental Bk. v. Adena Inv. Ltd. (1984), 4 O.A.C. 136 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Continental Bank of Canada v. Adena Investments Limited
Indexed As: Continental Bank of Canada v. Adena Investments Ltd.
Ontario Divisional Court
June 21, 1984.
The plaintiff bank sued the defendant corporation on a guarantee. The defence was that the president and alleged owners of the corporation acted under undue influence from her father in signing the guarantee. A local judge of the Supreme Court, in a decision unreported in this series of reports, held that a corporation could not rely on the defence of undue influence and allowed the bank's action. The corporation appealed.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The Divisional Court held that the defence of undue influence could be relied upon by a corporation in exceptional circumstances, which, however, did not exist in the case at bar.
Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 605
Undue influence - Application of doctrine - The Ontario Divisional Court held that a corporate defendant might rely on the defence of undue influence in exceptional circumstances - The court gave an example of circumstances when the defence might be so successfully used - See paragraph 6.
D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees,  3 All E.R. 837 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].
North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. and another The Atlantic Baron,  3 All E.R. 1170, refd to. [para. 5].
R.J. McComb, for the defendant (appellant);
K.F. Dyer, for the plaintiff (respondent).
This appeal was heard before Southey, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court on June 15, 1984, whose decision was released on June 21, 1984.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP