|
|
L’appelante a échoué en première instance, le juge Ste-Marie ayant conclu que l’intimé était un détenteur régulier par rapport à l’appelante de sorte que l’absence de contrepartie est sans conséquence et, en second lieu, qu’elle est responsable à titre de partie de complaisance envers l’intimé, un détenteur contre valeur, selon l’art.
|
|
|
The appellant failed at trial, Ste-Marie J. holding that the respondent was a holder in due course vis-à-vis the appellant so that any alleged want of consideration was immaterial and, secondly, that she was liable as an accommodation party to the respondent, a holder for value, pursuant to s. 55 of the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-5. A majority of the Court of Appeal, speaking through Casey J.A., Chouinard J.A., as he then was, concurring, affirmed the judgment for the respondent on the basis of the application of s. 55. Montgomery J.A. dissented on the ground that no consideration proceeded from the respondent to the appellant or her husband, neither forbearance nor any renunciation of rights but, rather, there was
|
