Royal Bank of Canada v. Societe General (Canada)

Royal Bank of Canada v. Societe General (Canada)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the motion judge committed reversible legal errors: he improperly reversed the onus on Rule 20 (requiring respondents to lead evidence of a genuine issue) and decided the motions on the assumed factual premise that endorsements were forged, thereby depriving parties of a full evidentiary record on core contested issues; the proper remedy was to set aside the judgment below, dismiss the summary judgment motions and order a full trial of all interrelated claims.

Citation
C44657, C44659
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Royal Bank of Canada; Defendant (respondent): Société Générale (Canada); Defendant (respondent): Bert Coish; Defendant (respondent): CitiCapital Limited; Defendant (respondent): Bank of Montreal; Defendant (respondent): American Home Assurance Company; Defendant (respondent): Chubb Insurance Company of Canada; Defendant (respondent): Liberty Mutual Insurance Company of Canada (represented by Liberty International Canada); Defendant (respondent): Gulf Insurance Company UK Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Lloyd's Syndicates 204, 1007, 435 & 1212
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Hearing Appeal From Superior Court Rule 20 Summary Judgment Motions; Order Remitting Entire Action to Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross‑appeals dismissed; judgment of motion judge set aside; summary judgment motions dismissed; entire action remitted to trial
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (rule 20), Bills of Exchange Act (endorsements, Forgery, Preclusion, Right to Recover), Canadian Payments Association Reverse‑clearing, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, Money Had and Received, Duty of Care, Onus of Proof, Assumed Facts on Interlocutory Motion, Insurer Indemnity
Source Language
English
Banking Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Restitution Tort Law (negligence) Insurance Law Fraud Summary Judgment (rule 20) +9 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (appellant)

Société Générale (Canada)

Defendant (respondent)

Bert Coish

Defendant (respondent)

CitiCapital Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Bank of Montreal

Defendant (respondent)

American Home Assurance Company

Defendant (respondent)

Chubb Insurance Company of Canada

Defendant (respondent)

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company of Canada (represented by Liberty International Canada)

Defendant (respondent)

Gulf Insurance Company UK Ltd.

Defendant (respondent)

Lloyd's Syndicates 204, 1007, 435 & 1212

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Hearing Appeal From Superior Court Rule 20 Summary Judgment Motions; Order Remitting Entire Action to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge reversed the onus on a Rule 20 motion
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred by deciding motions on assumed facts (that endorsements were forged)
  3. 3 Whether the markings on instruments constituted forged or unauthorized endorsements under the BEA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the motion judge committed reversible legal errors: he improperly reversed the onus on Rule 20 (requiring respondents to lead evidence of a genuine issue) and decided the motions on the assumed factual premise that endorsements were forged, thereby depriving parties of a full evidentiary record on core contested issues; the proper remedy was to set aside the judgment below, dismiss the summary judgment motions and order a full trial of all interrelated claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross‑appeals dismissed; judgment of motion judge set aside; summary judgment motions dismissed; entire action remitted to trial

Orders

  • Set aside the motion judge's judgment dated November 18, 2005 and April 3, 2006
  • Dismiss all parties' summary judgment motions (Rule 20)