Royal Bank of Canada v. Mack

Royal Bank of Canada v. Mack

The bank was not liable because the branch manager's acceptance of funds to invest at his unrestricted discretion was not an act authorized or within the general scope of his employment as a bank agent and did not fall within the bank's statutory banking powers under Bank Act s.75(1)(c),(d).

Citation
[1932] SCR 488
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Royal Bank of Canada; Respondent / Plaintiff: William Mack
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 1932
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (banking/collection) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed; action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Branch Manager Authority, Scope of Employment, Vicarious Liability, Interpretation of Bank Act S.75
Source Language
English
Banking Law Agency Law Trust Law Branch Manager Authority Scope of Employment Vicarious Liability Interpretation of Bank Act S.75

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Appellant / Defendant

William Mack

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (banking/collection) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank is vicariously liable for its branch manager's misuse of a customer's funds
  2. 2 Whether an undertaking by a bank (or its agent) to invest a customer's money at the bank's discretion falls within the scope of banking business under Bank Act R.S.C. 1927 c.12 s.75(1)(c),(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The bank was not liable because the branch manager's acceptance of funds to invest at his unrestricted discretion was not an act authorized or within the general scope of his employment as a bank agent and did not fall within the bank's statutory banking powers under Bank Act s.75(1)(c),(d).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed