Épiciers Unis Métro-Richelieu Inc. v. Collin, (2004) 326 N.R. 89 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 01, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 326 N.R. 89 (SCC);2004 SCC 59

Métro-Richelieu v. Collin (2004), 326 N.R. 89 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. OC.001

Georges Reid (appellant) c. Épiciers Unis Métro-Richelieu Inc., division "Éconogros" (respondent)

(29394; 2004 CSC 59; 2004 SCC 59)

Indexed As: Épiciers Unis Métro-Richelieu Inc. v. Collin

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Fish, JJ.

October 1, 2004.

Summary:

In 1992, the defendant became a director and officer of a corporation and agreed to stand surety for the corporation's debts. In 1993, the defendant resigned from the cor­poration. On January 1, 1994, the Civil Code of Québec came into force. By virtue of art. 2363, a suretyship attached to the perform­ance of special duties was terminated upon cessation of the duties. In 1994, the corpor­ation defaulted. The creditor sued the defen­dant to enforce the suretyship.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a judgment reported [1998] Q.J. No. 2689, dismissed the action. The creditor appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Chamber­land, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported [2002] R.J.Q. 1652, allowed the appeal. The defendant appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. The evidence established that the defendant's suretyship was connected with the duties he performed for the corpor­ation. As a result, and with the duties having ceased, the defendant was discharged from his suretyship, except with respect to any debts existing on January 1, 1994, the date of coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec. The court remitted the matter to the Quebec Superior Court to determine the amount of the debts existing on January 1, 1994, and order the defendant to pay that amount up to the limit of his suretyship, which had been fixed at $15,000.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 43

General principles - The Civil Code - Interpretation - [See Quebec Security - Topic 4955 ].

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9402

Reform of the Civil Code - General - Retroactivity, immediate application and retrospectivity of new legislation - [See Quebec Security - Topic 4955 ].

Quebec Security - Topic 4955

Suretyship - Extinction of suretyship - Cessation of duties to which the suretyship attached - In 1992, the defendant became a director and officer of a corporation and agreed to stand surety for the corporation's debts - In 1993, the defendant resigned from the corporation - On January 1, 1994, the Civil Code of Québec came into force - Under art. 2363, a suretyship attached to the performance of special duties was terminated upon cessation of the duties - In 1994, the corporation defaulted - The defendant was sued - The issue was the interpretation of art. 2363 - The Supreme Court of Canada held: (1) all suretyships attached to the performance of special duties terminated when the duties ceased; (2) art. 2363 could not be limited to legal suretyships without disregarding the broad and liberal approach applicable to the Civil Code of Québec; (3) art. 2363 applied to all suretyships attached to the performance of the surety's duties, without distinction between legal and conventional surety­ships; (4) art. 2363 had effect once the surety proved that the suretyship was connected with the duties he performed; and (5) art. 2363 had retrospective effect, given s. 131 of the Act respecting the implementation of the reform of the Civil Code - The end result here was: (1) the evidence established that the defendant's suretyship was connected with the duties he performed for the corporation; and (2) the duties having ceased, the defendant was discharged from his suretyship, except with respect to any debts existing on Jan­uary 1, 1994, the date of coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec.

Statutes - Topic 6703

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - What constitutes retrospective or retroactive operation - [See Quebec Security - Topic 4955 ].

Statutes - Topic 6703.1

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retroactivity and retrospectivity distinguished - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the difference between retrospective and retroactive legis­lation - See paragraph 46.

Cases Noticed:

Doré v. Verdun (Ville), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862; 215 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 20].

Kravitz v. General Motors Products of Canada Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 790; 25 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757; 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 73, consd. [para. 21].

Swift Canadian Co. v. Wienstein, J.E. 82-231 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Armoires D.L.M. inc. v. Constructions Plani-sphère inc., J.E. 96-639 (Que. Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 31].

Entreprises Roofmart (Québec) ltée v. Filiatreault (Succession de), [1999] Q.J. No. 2084 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 31].

Emco ltée v. Plamondon, B.E. 99BE-174 (C.Q.), consd. [para. 31].

Banque Nationale du Canada v. Reid, [2001] R.J.Q. 1349 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 31].

Caisse populaire Desjardins de Plessisville v. Parent, J.E. 2000-789 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Groupe Permacon Inc. v. Fata, J.E. 97-1052 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 31].

Métropole Litho inc. v. Groupe Propulsion Inc., J.E. 94-1990 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Prette v. Banque internationale pour l'Afrique occidentale, Bull. civ. 1988.IV.193, No. 283 (Cass. Com.), refd to. [para. 35].

Crédit du Nord v. Bourlet, Bull. civ. 1988.IV.225, No. 334 (Cass. Com.), refd to. [para. 35]; D. 1989, p. 185, note Aynès, refd to. [para. 35].

Crédit lyonnais v. Bonche, Bull. civ. 1989.IV.110, No. 166, J.C.P.G. 1989.IV. 282 (Cass. Com.), consd. [para. 35].

Simon v. Banque française de l'agriculture et du crédit mutuel, Bull. civ. 1990.IV.77, no. 117, J.C.P.G. 1990.IV.231 (Cass. Com.), refd to. [para. 35]; D. 1991, p. 177, note Morvan, refd to. [para. 35].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401, refd to. [para. 48].

Board of Trustees of Acme Village School District No. 2296 of Alberta v. Steele-Smith, [1933] S.C.R. 47, refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 9, art. 2362, art. 2363, art. 2364 [para. 16].

Implementation of the reform of the Civil Code, Act respecting the, S.Q. 1992, c. 57, sect. 2, sect. 4, sect. 131 [para. 16].

Interpretation Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. I-6, sect. 41, sect. 41.1 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bandrac, Monique, Sûretés (1989), R.T.D. civ. 358, p. 361 [para. 35].

Bélanger, André, De la fonction de la caution en tant que terme implicite du cautionnement (1998), 58 R. du B. 137, pp. 141, 142 [para. 32]; 144 [para. 43].

Bergel, Jean-Louis, Spécificité des code et autonomie de leur interprétation, in Le Nouveau code civil: interprétation et application - Les journées Maximilien-Caron 1992 (1993), c. 3, p. 8 ff. [para. 20].

Ciotola, Pierre, Droit des sûretés, 3e éd., 1999, p. 67 [para. 32].

Claxton, John B., Security on Property and the Rights of Secured Creditors under the Civil Code of Québec (1994), pp. 308 [para. 32]; 309 [paras. 32, 43].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legis­lation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 26 ff. [para. 20, English version]; 133 ff, 167 ff. [para. 46, English version]; 152 ff., 191 ff. [paras. 46, 48, English ver­sion]; 163 [para. 48, English version]; 175, 194 ff. [para. 46, English version]; 205 [para. 48, English version]; 245 ff. [para. 46, English version]; 220 [para. 46, English version]; 552, 697 [para. 38, English version].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois, 3e éd., 1999, pp. 34 ff [para. 20, French version]; 167 ff. [para. 46, French ver­sion; 191 ff. [paras. 46, 48, French ver­sion]; 205 [para. 48, French version]; 220, 245 ff. [para. 46, French version]; 697 [para. 38, French version]

Driedger, Elmer A., Statutes: Retroactive Retrospective Reflections (1978), 56 Can. Bar Rev. 264, pp. 268, 269 [para. 46].

Jutras, Daniel, Le ministre et le Code - essai sur les Commentaires, in Mélanges Paul-André Crépeau (1997), pp. 455, 464 [para. 38].

Mouly, Christian, Les causes d'extinction du cautionnement (1979), p. 347 ff. [para. 34].

Poudrier-LeBel, Louise, Provisions respecting suretyship in the new Civil Code of Quebec, in Reform of the Civil Code, (1993), vol. 3B, p. 12 [para. 32].

Poudrier-Lebel, Louise, Les dispositions du nouveau Code civil du Québec, relatives au cautionnement, in La réforme du Code civil: Obligations, contrats nommés (1993), t. II, 1031, p. 1052 [para. 32, French version].

Poudrier-LeBel, Louise, L'extinction du cautionnement, in Collection de droit, Obligations et contracts (2003), vol. 5, p. 323 [para. 43].

Quebec, Ministère de la Justice, Commentaires du ministre de la Justice, Le Code civil du Québec - Un mouvement de société (1993), t. II, pp. 1465 [para. 37]; 1482, 1483 [para. 27].

Quebec, Ministère de la Justice, Commentaires détaillés sur les disposi­tions du projet de loi 125: Le code civil du Québec (1991), Book V, Title 2, vol. II, generally [para. 26].

Quebec, Ministère de la Justice, Loi sur l'application de la réforme du Code civil et Commentaires du ministre de la Jus­tice (1994), p. 348 [para. 42].

Simler, Philippe, Le juge et la caution. Excès de rigueur ou excès d'indulgence? (1986), p. 175 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Marc-André Gravel, Andrée-Claude Har­vey and Hugo Lafrenière, for the appel­lant;

Stéphane Davignon and Jean-Marc Clé­ment, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gravel Bédard Vaillancourt, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the appellant.

Clément Davignon, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 17, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Octo­ber 1, 2004, by LeBel, J.