Bertrand v. Hébert

Bertrand v. Hébert

The garnishee was relieved because the judgment creditor failed to prove the remittances were payments on the note sufficient to interrupt prescription and the April 8, 2002 letter by the garnishee's attorney did not constitute the new acknowledgment or promise required to revive a debt already prescribed; accordingly the note was found prescribed and the garnishee order to show cause was discharged.

Citation
2004 FC 278
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Minister of National Revenue; Judgment Debtor: Henri Bertrand; Garnishee: Roméo Hébert
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Garnishment (garnishee Proceedings) / Motion for Garnishee Order Absolute (hearing on Motion)
Outcome
Garnishee order to show cause (April 24, 2002) discharged; note found prescribed; garnishee relieved of liability.
Legal Topics
Garnishment, Promissory Note, Prescription Interruption, Acknowledgement of Debt, Agency/mandatary Statements
Source Language
English
Tax Law Civil Procedure Debt Enforcement Prescription (limitation) Garnishment Promissory Note Prescription Interruption Acknowledgement of Debt +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of National Revenue

Judgment Creditor

Henri Bertrand

Judgment Debtor

Roméo Hébert

Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Garnishment (garnishee Proceedings) / Motion for Garnishee Order Absolute (hearing on Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promissory note was prescribed under Civil Code of Québec article 2925
  2. 2 Whether remittances to a third party interrupted prescription as partial repayments
  3. 3 Whether the April 8, 2002 letter from the garnishee's US attorney constituted a new acknowledgement sufficient to revive the prescribed debt

Ratio Decidendi

The garnishee was relieved because the judgment creditor failed to prove the remittances were payments on the note sufficient to interrupt prescription and the April 8, 2002 letter by the garnishee's attorney did not constitute the new acknowledgment or promise required to revive a debt already prescribed; accordingly the note was found prescribed and the garnishee order to show cause was discharged.

Court Disposition

Garnishee order to show cause (April 24, 2002) discharged; note found prescribed; garnishee relieved of liability.

Orders

  • The garnishee order to show cause issued April 24, 2002 is discharged.
  • The garnishee, Roméo Hébert, is relieved of the garnishee order.