Royal Bank of Canada v. 951911 Ontario Limited

Royal Bank of Canada v. 951911 Ontario Limited

The guarantee was enforceable because the loan advanced to the numbered company formed by Burke constituted sufficient consideration for the guarantee; the bank was not required to realize on its security before demanding payment and was entitled to leave assets with the landlord; accordingly liability was upheld...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C33736
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Royal Bank of Canada; Defendant/appellant: 951911 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as The Brew-It Store; Defendant/appellant: Edmund Burke
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Collection / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Guarantee, Consideration, Realization of Security, Demand for Payment, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Commercial Banking and Finance Appeal Guarantee Consideration Realization of Security Demand for Payment +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Plaintiff/respondent

951911 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as The Brew-It Store

Defendant/appellant

Edmund Burke

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Collection / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was consideration supporting the guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the bank was required to realize on its security before demanding payment from the guarantor
  3. 3 Whether leaving assets with the landlord precluded the bank from demanding payment

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantee was enforceable because the loan advanced to the numbered company formed by Burke constituted sufficient consideration for the guarantee; the bank was not required to realize on its security before demanding payment and was entitled to leave assets with the landlord; accordingly liability was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.