Zidle v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al.

Zidle v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al.
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1983-05-17
Report
[1983] 1 SCR 654
Case number
16238
Judges
Ritchie, Roland Almon; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Financial institutions
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Zidle v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 654
Date: 1983-05-17
Carl J. Zidle Appellant;
and
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Respondent;
and
Riddell Stead & Co. and Melvin C. Zwaig Respondents.
AND BETWEEN
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Appellant;
and
Riddell Stead & Co. and Melvin C. Zwaig Respondents.
File No.: 16238.
1983: May 3, 4; 1983: May 17.
Present: Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC
Banks—Liability—Taking possession of inventory transferred in warranty—Part of inventory lost—Liability exclusion clause applicable—No gross fault attributable to Bank.
In light of the precarious financial situation of its debtor, the Bank executed its warranty and took possession, through its mandataries (respondents Riddell Stead & Co. and Zwaig), of the premises of its debtor and the inventories transferred in warranty pursuant to s. 88 of the Bank Act. Part of the inventory apparently disappeared during this period. The debtor filed for bankruptcy shortly after repaying the Bank, and the trustee (appellant Zidle) brought an action in damages against the Bank. The Bank brought an action in warranty against its mandataries. The Superior Court allowed both actions. The Court of Appeal reversed both judgments, holding that there was no evidence that the Bank or its mandataries had committed gross fault which would be a reason to set aside the liability exclusion clause existing in favour of the Bank.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal[1], reversing a judgment of the Superior Court[2]. Appeal dismissed.
Alain Stein and Neil Stein, for the appellant.
Jean Delage and Jacques Des Marais, for the respondent.
Michel Rioux, Q.C., and Thomas Montgomery, Q.C., for the respondents.
English version of the judgment of
THE COURT—No argument put forward by appellant has shown any error justifying the intervention of this Court in the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the principal action[3].
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Stein & Stein, Montreal.
Solicitors for the respondent: Monet, Hart, Saint-Pierre & Des Marais, Montreal.
Solicitors for the respondents: Colby, Rioux & Demers, Montreal.
[1] C.A. Mtl., No. 500-09-000-925-768, August 26, 1980.
[2] S.C. Mtl., No. 05-000807-754, July 9, 1976.
[3] For the action in warranty see [1983] 1 S.C.R. 656.