Royal Bank of Canada v. College Mercury Sales Ltd., (1977) 2 A.R. 368 (CA)
Judge | McDermid, Moir and Haddad, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
Case Date | January 27, 1977 |
Citations | (1977), 2 A.R. 368 (CA) |
Royal Bk. v. College Mercury Sales Ltd. (1977), 2 A.R. 368 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Royal Bank of Canada v. College Mercury Sales Ltd.
Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. College Mercury Sales Ltd.
Alberta Supreme Court
Appellate Division
McDermid, Moir and Haddad, JJ.A.
January 27, 1977.
Summary:
This case arose out of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant under a chattel mortgage. The plaintiff in British Columbia made a loan to a person secured by a chattel mortgage on an automobile. The chattel mortgage with an affidavit of execution attached was filed in British Columbia in accordance with the Bills of Sale Act of British Columbia. The person sold the automobile to another, who took it to Alberta and traded it to the defendant. The plaintiff learned of the transfer to Alberta within the time limited and filed the chattel mortgage in Alberta with the affidavit of execution attached. Under the Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 29, s. 13, chattel mortgages made in Alberta were required on filing to have an affidavit of bona fides attached. On the plaintiff's action to enforce the chattel mortgage against the defendant the Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the action and held that the chattel mortgage was not validly filed in Alberta. The plaintiff appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Trial Division. The Court of Appeal held that under s. 13 of the Bills of Sale Act the chattel mortgage was validly filed in Alberta in the form in which it was filed in British Columbia - see paragraphs 1 to 21.
Chattel Mortgages - Topic 2384
Registration and filing - Registration of chattel mortgages from other jurisdictions - Form of filing or registration - Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 29 s. 13 - The plaintiff filed in Alberta a chattel mortgage previously made and filed in British Columbia in compliance with British Columbia law - The chattel mortgage as filed in Alberta had only an affidavit of execution attached and not an affidavit of bona fides, as was required of chattel mortgages made in Alberta - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that under s. 13 of the Bills of Sale Act the chattel mortgage was validly filed in Alberta - See paragraphs 1 to 21.
Statutes - Topic 1622
Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Similar statutes - The Alberta Court of Appeal referred to the wording of s. 14 of the Conditional Sales Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 61, in construing the similar s. 13 of the Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 29 - See paragraph 20.
Statutes - Topic 2609
Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context - Variation of language - Presumption of intention to change meaning - Sections 6 and 10 of the Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 29, in referring to chattel mortgages made in Alberta used the words "such affidavits as are by this act required" - In s. 13 in referring to chattel mortgages made outside Alberta the words "all affidavits and documents accompanying or relating to the mortgage" were used - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that there was a presumption that the change in language from ss. 6 and 10 to s. 13 denoted a change in meaning - The Court of Appeal held that the requirements for foreign chattel mortgages under s. 13 respecting attached affidavits were different from those for Alberta chattel mortgages under ss. 6 and 10 - See paragraphs 13 to 19.
Cases Noticed:
Jones v. Twohey (1908), 8 W.L.R. 295, appld. [para. 21].
Hulbert v. Peterson (1905), 36 S.C.R. 324, refd to. [para. 22].
Klimove v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation (1955), 14 W.W.R.(N.S.) 463; [1955] 2 D.L.R. 215, refd to. [para. 22].
Rennie's Car Sales and Hicks v. Union Acceptance Corp. Ltd., [1955] 4 D.L.R. 822; 16 W.W.R.(N.S.) 283, refd to. [para. 22].
Humfrey v. Hickey, [1972] 3 W.W.R. 389; 25 D.L.R.(3d) 224, refd to. [para. 22].
Statutes Noticed:
Bills of Sale Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 29, sect. 2(h), sect. 6(1), sect. 10(1) [para. 13]; sect. 2(m) [para. 12]; sect. 3(2) [para. 9]; sect. 7, sect. 9 [para. 11]; sect. 13(1), sect. 13(2) [para. 14].
Conditional Sales Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 61, sect. 14 [para. 20].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed.), p. 282 [para. 13].
Counsel:
K.G. Torry, for the appellant;
J.N. Legrandeur, for the respondent.
This case was heard before McDERMID, MOIR and HADDAD, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
On January 27, 1977, HADDAD, J.A., delivered the following judgment of the Appellate Division:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BNS v. Mustang Machinery Ltd., (1980) 33 A.R. 323 (QB)
...[para. 9]. Hannah v. Perlman, [1954] D.L.R. 282, consd. [para. 9]. Royal Bank of Canada v. College Mercury Sales Ltd. [1977] 1 W.W.R. 645; 2 A.R. 368, consd. [para. Genelcan Ltd. v. Barber-Ellis of Canada Limited et al., 25 C.B.R.N.S. 155; 9 A.R. 529, consd. [para. 14]. Evans v. Rival Grani......
-
BNS v. Mustang Machinery Ltd., (1980) 33 A.R. 323 (QB)
...[para. 9]. Hannah v. Perlman, [1954] D.L.R. 282, consd. [para. 9]. Royal Bank of Canada v. College Mercury Sales Ltd. [1977] 1 W.W.R. 645; 2 A.R. 368, consd. [para. Genelcan Ltd. v. Barber-Ellis of Canada Limited et al., 25 C.B.R.N.S. 155; 9 A.R. 529, consd. [para. 14]. Evans v. Rival Grani......