brc – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	La Banque Royale du Canada (succursale canadienne) (« BRC » ou « prêteur »).
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	Royal Bank of Canada (Canadian branch) (“RBC” or “Lender”).

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[67] L’argument du droit du tiers sur lequel s’est appuyé le juge de première instance ne tient que si la BRC ne pouvait faire valoir contre la BNÉ aucun droit au recouvrement des fonds. Ce n’est qu’à cette condition qu’on pourrait considérer que la BNÉ a agi à la place de la BRC.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[67] The jus tertii argument the trial judge relied on could be accepted only if RBC had no right to recover the funds from BNS.  Only then could BNS be said to have acted in RBC’s stead. Since I have concluded that BNS was entitled to give effect to RBC’s claim for restitution of the moneys paid under mistake of fact, the jus tertii argument fails.  This is the result of the application of the law to the highly singular facts of this case.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[91] Compte tenu de ma conclusion que la BNÉ pouvait contester la réclamation de BMP en invoquant la doctrine de l’erreur de fait, je juge qu’il n’y a pas lieu d’accorder de dommages‑intérêts supplémentaires. Le même raisonnement s’applique au blocage des fonds et à l’annulation des crédits, car la BRC pouvait suivre les fonds avec l’aide de la BNÉ.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	[91] In light of my conclusion that BNS could resist BMP’s claim on the basis of the doctrine of mistake of fact, it is my view that no additional damages can be awarded. Since RBC could trace the funds with the assistance of BNS, the same reasoning applies to the restraint of funds and the reversal of credits. Therefore, the claim to have the trial judge’s award restored fails.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[76] En l’espèce, les fonds de la BRC ont d’abord été transférés par l’entremise du système de compensation à la BNÉ, qui agit à titre de banque d’encaissement — et ainsi de mandataire — de BMP. La BNÉ a alors inscrit dans le compte de BMP les fonds reçus de la BRC.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[76] In the instant case, RBC’s funds were first transferred through the clearing system to BNS in its capacity as collecting bank — and thus as agent — for BMP. BNS then made the entry in BMP’s account to reflect the receipt of the funds from RBC. Finally, BMP made withdrawals from its account by way of transfers or cheques for deposit in the related accounts and, in the case of the transactions involving the $300,000 cheque, back to its own account. What is at issue here is a non-specific fund.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[7] Le 6 décembre 2001, la BRC et la BNÉ ont conclu une entente suivant laquelle la BRC atteste que le [traduction] « chèque du 12 octobre 2001 au montant de neuf cent quatre mille cinq cent soixante‑trois dollars (904 563 $) payable à l’ordre de BMP était un faux [. . .] et a été déposé dans le compte numéro 30460 00178‑17 de la Banque Scotia [. . .] et que le produit de ce faux chèque est le produit d’une fraude ».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[7] On December 6, 2001, RBC and BNS entered into an agreement in which RBC represented and warranted that the “cheque dated October 12, 2001, in the amount of nine hundred and four thousand five hundred and sixty-three dollars ($904,563.00) payable to BMP Global Distribution Inc. was counterfeit . . . [and] was deposited into Scotiabank account number 30460 00178-17 . . . [and] that the proceeds of the Counterfeit Cheque are proceeds of fraud”. Under this agreement, BNS was, at RBC’s request, to transfer the restrained funds to RBC and RBC was to indemnify BNS for any losses related to the restraint and transfer. On December 7, 2001, BNS transferred $777,336.04 to RBC.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[67] L’argument du droit du tiers sur lequel s’est appuyé le juge de première instance ne tient que si la BRC ne pouvait faire valoir contre la BNÉ aucun droit au recouvrement des fonds. Ce n’est qu’à cette condition qu’on pourrait considérer que la BNÉ a agi à la place de la BRC.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[67] The jus tertii argument the trial judge relied on could be accepted only if RBC had no right to recover the funds from BNS.  Only then could BNS be said to have acted in RBC’s stead. Since I have concluded that BNS was entitled to give effect to RBC’s claim for restitution of the moneys paid under mistake of fact, the jus tertii argument fails.  This is the result of the application of the law to the highly singular facts of this case.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[54] En concluant que la BNÉ n’avait pas le droit de bloquer les fonds et de les transférer à la BRC, le juge de première instance a considéré que le contrat de services incorporait les règles de compensation de l’Association canadienne des paiements.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[54] In concluding that BNS did not have the right to restrain the funds and transfer them to RBC, the trial judge interpreted the service agreement as incorporating the clearing rules of the Canadian Payments Association. Cohen J. held that “the Agreement specifically refers to, and incorporates the time limit set out in the [clearing] [r]ules” (para. 292).  With respect, I do not agree that the clearing rules are an obstacle to recovery.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

La demande de recouvrement peut cependant être rejetée dans les cas suivants : (1) le payeur avait l’intention que le bénéficiaire ait l’argent quoi qu’il arrive ou est juridiquement réputé avoir cette intention; (2) le paiement est effectué avec contrepartie valable; (3) le bénéficiaire a modifié sa situation de bonne foi ou est juridiquement réputé l’avoir fait. En l’espèce, la BRC a droit au recouvrement des fonds payés à BMP.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

If a person pays money to another under a mistake of fact which causes him to make the payment, he or she is prima facie entitled to recover it.  The person’s claim may fail, however, if (1) the payor intends that the payee shall have the money at all events or is deemed in law so to intend; (2) the payment is made for good consideration; or (3) the payee has changed his position in good faith or is deemed in law to have done so.  Here, RBC had a right to recover the money paid to BMP.  RBC’s payment was made on the basis of a forged cheque and the defences are not available to BMP in the circumstances of this case.  [22] [24]

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[53] Le blocage des fonds opéré par la BNÉ ne pouvait pas reposer sur la clause 4.7 parce qu’il y avait eu règlement entre la BNÉ et la BRC, mais le contrat n’exclut pas l’application des règles de common law dans le cas d’un paiement fondé sur une erreur de fait.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[53] Although the restraint of the funds by BNS could not be based on clause 4.7, since BNS had received settlement from RBC, the contract does not preclude the application of the common law where a payment has been made under a mistake of fact.  Rather, the common law is implicitly incorporated, since it does not conflict with the explicit terms of the contract.  Thus, clause 4.7 is not a bar to applying the common law to the relationship between BNS and BMP where BNS’s role is no longer that of a collecting bank.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[69] Les fonds reçus par la BNÉ étaient les fonds de la BRC elle‑même et cette dernière n’était pas autorisée à se faire rembourser sur le compte de First National. La conduite de la BNÉ aurait pu permettre aux parties d’éviter une série de procédures judiciaires.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[69] The funds received by BNS were RBC’s own funds and RBC had no right to be repaid out of First National’s account.  BNS acted in a way that could have enabled the parties to avoid going through a series of judicial proceedings. This Court’s reasoning in Bank Canadian National v. Gingras, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 554, at p. 564, applies with equal force here.  BNS asked BMP for support in recovering the proceeds of the forged cheque. BMP insisted on retaining the funds even though it had given no consideration for them and even though the fraud was beyond dispute. In this case, BNS’s actions entailed no risk of curtailing the protection from which a holder in due course is entitled to benefit.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[7] Le 6 décembre 2001, la BRC et la BNÉ ont conclu une entente suivant laquelle la BRC atteste que le [traduction] « chèque du 12 octobre 2001 au montant de neuf cent quatre mille cinq cent soixante‑trois dollars (904 563 $) payable à l’ordre de BMP était un faux [. . .] et a été déposé dans le compte numéro 30460 00178‑17 de la Banque Scotia [. . .] et que le produit de ce faux chèque est le produit d’une fraude ».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[7] On December 6, 2001, RBC and BNS entered into an agreement in which RBC represented and warranted that the “cheque dated October 12, 2001, in the amount of nine hundred and four thousand five hundred and sixty-three dollars ($904,563.00) payable to BMP Global Distribution Inc. was counterfeit . . . [and] was deposited into Scotiabank account number 30460 00178-17 . . . [and] that the proceeds of the Counterfeit Cheque are proceeds of fraud”. Under this agreement, BNS was, at RBC’s request, to transfer the restrained funds to RBC and RBC was to indemnify BNS for any losses related to the restraint and transfer. On December 7, 2001, BNS transferred $777,336.04 to RBC.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[7] Le 6 décembre 2001, la BRC et la BNÉ ont conclu une entente suivant laquelle la BRC atteste que le [traduction] « chèque du 12 octobre 2001 au montant de neuf cent quatre mille cinq cent soixante‑trois dollars (904 563 $) payable à l’ordre de BMP était un faux [. . .] et a été déposé dans le compte numéro 30460 00178‑17 de la Banque Scotia [. . .] et que le produit de ce faux chèque est le produit d’une fraude ».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[7] On December 6, 2001, RBC and BNS entered into an agreement in which RBC represented and warranted that the “cheque dated October 12, 2001, in the amount of nine hundred and four thousand five hundred and sixty-three dollars ($904,563.00) payable to BMP Global Distribution Inc. was counterfeit . . . [and] was deposited into Scotiabank account number 30460 00178-17 . . . [and] that the proceeds of the Counterfeit Cheque are proceeds of fraud”. Under this agreement, BNS was, at RBC’s request, to transfer the restrained funds to RBC and RBC was to indemnify BNS for any losses related to the restraint and transfer. On December 7, 2001, BNS transferred $777,336.04 to RBC.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

La demande de recouvrement peut cependant être rejetée dans les cas suivants : (1) le payeur avait l’intention que le bénéficiaire ait l’argent quoi qu’il arrive ou est juridiquement réputé avoir cette intention; (2) le paiement est effectué avec contrepartie valable; (3) le bénéficiaire a modifié sa situation de bonne foi ou est juridiquement réputé l’avoir fait. En l’espèce, la BRC a droit au recouvrement des fonds payés à BMP.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

If a person pays money to another under a mistake of fact which causes him to make the payment, he or she is prima facie entitled to recover it.  The person’s claim may fail, however, if (1) the payor intends that the payee shall have the money at all events or is deemed in law so to intend; (2) the payment is made for good consideration; or (3) the payee has changed his position in good faith or is deemed in law to have done so.  Here, RBC had a right to recover the money paid to BMP.  RBC’s payment was made on the basis of a forged cheque and the defences are not available to BMP in the circumstances of this case.  [22] [24]

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[74] Je conclus que la BRC a payé par erreur, que rien ne s’opposait à ce qu’elle recouvre les fonds et que BMP n’avait aucun moyen de défense à opposer. En particulier, la BNÉ pouvait à bon droit ne pas invoquer le moyen de défense fondé sur le par.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[74] I have found that RBC made a mistaken payment, that nothing precluded it from recovering the funds and that BMP had no defence to the claim.  More particularly, BNS was entitled not to raise a defence based on s. 165(3) BEA. RBC, in trying to trace the sums it had mistakenly paid, was informed that a portion amounting to over $776,000 was being held by BNS at the time the fraud was discovered.  An amount of $350,188.65 was still in BMP’s account. BNS also restrained funds in the related accounts.  The question the Court must now answer is whether the rules of evidence are a bar to restitution.  I will now discuss this issue.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[74] Je conclus que la BRC a payé par erreur, que rien ne s’opposait à ce qu’elle recouvre les fonds et que BMP n’avait aucun moyen de défense à opposer. En particulier, la BNÉ pouvait à bon droit ne pas invoquer le moyen de défense fondé sur le par.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[74] I have found that RBC made a mistaken payment, that nothing precluded it from recovering the funds and that BMP had no defence to the claim.  More particularly, BNS was entitled not to raise a defence based on s. 165(3) BEA. RBC, in trying to trace the sums it had mistakenly paid, was informed that a portion amounting to over $776,000 was being held by BNS at the time the fraud was discovered.  An amount of $350,188.65 was still in BMP’s account. BNS also restrained funds in the related accounts.  The question the Court must now answer is whether the rules of evidence are a bar to restitution.  I will now discuss this issue.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[24] Selon le premier volet du critère établi dans Simms, la BRC a, à première vue, droit au recouvrement. Nul ne conteste en l’espèce que l’effet payé était un faux. Selon le par. 48(1) de la LLC, la signature contrefaite est sans effet; elle ne confère pas le droit d’acquitter la lettre de change ou d’obliger une partie à en effectuer le paiement.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[24] On the first step of the Simms test, RBC has a prima facie right to recover.  It is common ground that payment was made on the basis of a forged instrument.  According to s. 48(1) BEA, a forged signature is wholly inoperative. It does not create a right to give a discharge for the bill or to enforce payment. RBC made the payment before discovering that the drawer’s signatures were forged. BMP no longer disputes the fact that the instrument is a forgery, but it contends that RBC must bear the loss and that BNS was not entitled to restrain the funds and transfer them to RBC.  This argument goes to the second step of the test. At the first step, there is no basis for denying that RBC has a prima facie right to recover the funds.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[19] En résumé, la présente affaire concerne la restitution des sommes payées par erreur par la BRC et le droit de suivre le produit du chèque. Puisqu’il est possible de trancher l’affaire par application des règles de common law en matière d’erreur de fait, j’examinerai d’abord ces règles, pour ensuite les appliquer aux faits en expliquant comment elles s’intègrent à la relation entre la banque tirée et la banque d’encaissement et à celle entre le client et sa banque; cela nécessite un examen plus approfondi de la common law dans la mesure où la Loi sur les lettres de change, L.R.C. 1985, ch.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[19] In sum, this case is about the restitution of amounts paid by RBC by mistake and the right to trace the proceeds. Since the case can be resolved by applying the common law rules on mistake of fact, I will begin by reviewing those rules. I will then apply the rules to the facts, and in doing so I will explain how the rules apply in the context of the relationship between the drawee and the collecting bank and between the customer and the bank; this will require a further discussion of the common law inasmuch as it has not been changed by the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B‑4 (“BEA”).  Finally, I will explain why, in my view, BNS could resist the claims of BMP and the holders of the related accounts.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[7] Le 6 décembre 2001, la BRC et la BNÉ ont conclu une entente suivant laquelle la BRC atteste que le [traduction] « chèque du 12 octobre 2001 au montant de neuf cent quatre mille cinq cent soixante‑trois dollars (904 563 $) payable à l’ordre de BMP était un faux [. . .] et a été déposé dans le compte numéro 30460 00178‑17 de la Banque Scotia [. . .] et que le produit de ce faux chèque est le produit d’une fraude ».

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[7] On December 6, 2001, RBC and BNS entered into an agreement in which RBC represented and warranted that the “cheque dated October 12, 2001, in the amount of nine hundred and four thousand five hundred and sixty-three dollars ($904,563.00) payable to BMP Global Distribution Inc. was counterfeit . . . [and] was deposited into Scotiabank account number 30460 00178-17 . . . [and] that the proceeds of the Counterfeit Cheque are proceeds of fraud”. Under this agreement, BNS was, at RBC’s request, to transfer the restrained funds to RBC and RBC was to indemnify BNS for any losses related to the restraint and transfer. On December 7, 2001, BNS transferred $777,336.04 to RBC.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[67] L’argument du droit du tiers sur lequel s’est appuyé le juge de première instance ne tient que si la BRC ne pouvait faire valoir contre la BNÉ aucun droit au recouvrement des fonds. Ce n’est qu’à cette condition qu’on pourrait considérer que la BNÉ a agi à la place de la BRC.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[67] The jus tertii argument the trial judge relied on could be accepted only if RBC had no right to recover the funds from BNS.  Only then could BNS be said to have acted in RBC’s stead. Since I have concluded that BNS was entitled to give effect to RBC’s claim for restitution of the moneys paid under mistake of fact, the jus tertii argument fails.  This is the result of the application of the law to the highly singular facts of this case.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[6] Le 9 novembre 2001, la BRC a avisé la BNÉ que le chèque de 904 563 $ déposé dans le compte de BMP le 22 octobre 2001 était un faux, car les signatures du tireur étaient contrefaites, et a demandé à la BNÉ de lui prêter assistance.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[6] On November 9, 2001, RBC notified BNS that the cheque for $904,563 deposited in BMP’s account on October 22, 2001 was counterfeit, as the drawer’s signatures were forged and asked for BNS’s assistance. BNS interrupted all transactions in BMP’s account and in all related accounts and asked BMP for assistance in recovering the proceeds of the forged cheque.  BMP insisted on retaining the amount it still held. BNS then restrained the following amounts in accounts under its control that it had linked to the forged cheque:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[76] En l’espèce, les fonds de la BRC ont d’abord été transférés par l’entremise du système de compensation à la BNÉ, qui agit à titre de banque d’encaissement — et ainsi de mandataire — de BMP. La BNÉ a alors inscrit dans le compte de BMP les fonds reçus de la BRC.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[76] In the instant case, RBC’s funds were first transferred through the clearing system to BNS in its capacity as collecting bank — and thus as agent — for BMP. BNS then made the entry in BMP’s account to reflect the receipt of the funds from RBC. Finally, BMP made withdrawals from its account by way of transfers or cheques for deposit in the related accounts and, in the case of the transactions involving the $300,000 cheque, back to its own account. What is at issue here is a non-specific fund.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[40] L’autre disposition pertinente pour ce qui est du droit de la BRC de recouvrer auprès de la BNÉ l’argent qu’elle a payé par erreur est le par. 165(3) de la LLC, dont voici le texte :
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	[40] The other provision that is relevant to RBC’s right to recover the money it paid by mistake from BNS is s. 165(3) BEA. This provision reads as follows:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	1.    MAIL a déposé à la BRC une somme égale au prêt (environ 100 millions de dollars);
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	1.    MAIL placed on deposit with the RBC an amount equal to the Loan (approximately $100 million); and

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Jersey) Limited (« RBC Jersey » ou « le fiduciaire ») est le fiduciaire de MACT et une filiale en propriété exclusive de BRC, constituée en personne morale sous le régime des lois du Jersey.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Jersey) Limited (“RBC Jersey” or “Trustee”) is the trustee of MACT and is a wholly owned subsidiary of RBC, incorporated in Jersey.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[38] En l’espèce, la banque tirée (la BRC), en demandant restitution à la banque d’encaissement (la BNÉ), opposait tant à la banque d’encaissement qu’au preneur l’authenticité des signatures du tireur.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

[38] In the instant case, the drawee (RBC), in requesting restitution from the collecting bank (BNS), was in fact denying to both the collecting bank and the payee the genuineness of the drawer’s signatures. Consequently, the question is whether the payee and the collecting bank were holders in due course and therefore entitled to rely on s. 128(a) BEA.  I will discuss the payee’s situation first, because the collecting bank has a special status which, in this case, is governed by s. 165(3), to which I will turn below.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Les paiements de loyer au titre du bail et une partie du premier prix d’option d’achat seraient affectés au remboursement du prêt de la BRC, et le reste du prix de l’option d’achat serait garanti par l’obligation.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	XI.              The rent payments under the Lease and a portion of the First Option Value would be applied to pay off the RBC loan and the remainder of the purchase option price would be covered by the Bond.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[46] BMP a également fait valoir que la BNÉ n’avait pas le droit de bloquer les fonds et de les transférer à la BRC parce que le contrat de services régissant la relation contractuelle ne le permettait pas.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	[46] BMP also argued, and the trial judge agreed, that BNS was not entitled to restrain the funds and transfer them to RBC because the service agreement governing the contractual relationship did not authorize this.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[66] Le juge de première instance a conclu que la BNÉ ne pouvait légitimement transférer les fonds à la BRC. Il estimait qu’elle avait privilégié une banque au détriment de son client et qu’elle ne pouvait exercer aucun des droits dont la BRC aurait pu se prévaloir.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	[66] The trial judge found that it was wrong for BNS to transfer the funds to RBC.  He was of the view that BNS had favoured a bank to its customer’s detriment. In his opinion, BNS was not entitled to exercise any of the rights that could have been exercised by RBC.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

X. Le 17 décembre 1996, HTC a cédé à BRC les paiements de loyer que MAIL lui devait aux termes du bail. HTC a également donné à MAIL l’ordre irrévocable d’effectuer les paiements de loyer cédés à la BRC afin que cette dernière puisse les affecter directement au remboursement du prêt qu’elle avait consenti à HTC.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain

X.                On December 17, 1996, CTMC assigned to RBC the rent payments owed to CTMC from MAIL under the Lease.  CTMC also provided MAIL with an irrevocable instruction to pay the assigned rent payments to RBC such that RBC would apply the rent payments directly to the installment payments due by CTMC to RBC under the terms of the Loan Agreement.  RBC’s recourse under the Loan was limited to the rent payments assigned to it by CTMC.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[66] Le juge de première instance a conclu que la BNÉ ne pouvait légitimement transférer les fonds à la BRC. Il estimait qu’elle avait privilégié une banque au détriment de son client et qu’elle ne pouvait exercer aucun des droits dont la BRC aurait pu se prévaloir.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	[66] The trial judge found that it was wrong for BNS to transfer the funds to RBC.  He was of the view that BNS had favoured a bank to its customer’s detriment. In his opinion, BNS was not entitled to exercise any of the rights that could have been exercised by RBC.