Banque Canadienne Nationale v. Mastracchio

Banque Canadienne Nationale v. Mastracchio

The Court upheld the trial and appellate courts: plaintiff proved the money was removed by someone other than himself or his agent and proved specific failures by the bank to take ordinary precautions (not safeguarding the master key, not changing lock, leaving customers unattended, lax registry practices); clause 7 did not bar the inference that an unauthorized person opened the box; the bank failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities that its breaches did not cause the loss, therefore the bank was liable.

Citation
[1962] SCR 53
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Banque Canadienne Nationale; Plaintiff Respondent: Donato Mastracchio
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1961
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec affirmed.
Legal Topics
Safety Deposit Box, Bank Liability, Master Key Security, Burden of Proof, Ordinary Precautions, Presumption Vs Inference
Source Language
English
Contract Bailment Evidence Safety Deposit Box Bank Liability Master Key Security Burden of Proof Ordinary Precautions +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banque Canadienne Nationale

Defendant Appellant

Donato Mastracchio

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank breached its contractual obligation to take ordinary precautions to prevent opening of a safety deposit box by an unauthorized person
  2. 2 Whether disappearance of contents creates a presumption that an unauthorized person opened the box given clause limiting presumption
  3. 3 What is the burden of proof and whether it was discharged by the bank

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial and appellate courts: plaintiff proved the money was removed by someone other than himself or his agent and proved specific failures by the bank to take ordinary precautions (not safeguarding the master key, not changing lock, leaving customers unattended, lax registry practices); clause 7 did not bar the inference that an unauthorized person opened the box; the bank failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities that its breaches did not cause the loss, therefore the bank was liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec affirmed