Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union

Last updated

Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: April 19, 2010
Judgment: November 5, 2010
Full case nameBank of Montreal v. Innovation Credit Union
Citations 2010 SCC 47, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 3
Docket No. 33153
Prior historyAppeal from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, reversing a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan.
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Holding
The Bank Act provides no express priority rule vis à vis prior security interests.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byCharron J.

Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the priority of unregistered security interests of a creditor against a security interest created later by a chartered bank under the Bank Act .

Contents

Facts

James Buist, a farmer in Saskatchewan, borrowed money from the Innovation Credit Union in October 1991. In return, he provided the credit union with a security interest in all of his present and after-acquired personal property, which would be governed by the Personal Property Security Act (Saskatchewan) . The interest was not entered into Saskatchewan's PPSA registry until June 2004.

After this loan was provided, Buist also borrowed money from the Bank of Montreal, and several security agreements were executed between 1998 and January 2004. Buist did not disclose to the bank the loan from the credit union or its security interest, and, as it had not been registered, its existence did not appear in searches of the PPSA and Bank Act registries.

The Bank's security interest was registered under the Bank Act, and the PPSA in Saskatchewan does not allow parallel registration of such interests in its registry.

Buist ultimately became insolvent, and the Bank seized some of his property that was covered by its security in December 2004. The credit union applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan for a declaration that it had a priority claim over the proceeds of the disposition of that property.

The issue

Was a registered security interest under the Bank Act able to defeat an unregistered security interest that operated under provincial legislation?

The judgments below

The Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the Bank Act had priority by virtue of the Bank having perfected its security interest. As the judge (T.C. Zarzeczny J.) noted,

[52] In the present case the issue of perfection by registration and therefore notice to all of the security interest claimed by the Credit Union is central to the determination of this priority dispute. If the provisions of s. 428 of the Bank Act referring to "all rights subsequently acquired in, on or in respect of [that] property ..." includes priority rights then by the second rule in the Agricultural Credit Corp. of Saskatchewan case the Bank succeeds in its claim of priority in this case. Priority is obtained by the Credit Union in respect of its prior security interest only when that interest is perfected, in this case, by registration. Registration gives notice to all third parties of the nature of the security interest claimed and implicitly its priority.

This ruling was reversed on appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. In a unanimous decision (per Jackson, J.A.), the court stated,

[52] At bottom, this is an exercise in statutory interpretation, which requires recourse to the general principles of statutory interpretation, including the need to read the words to be interpreted in their entire context. It is clear that the Bank Act provides no express priority rule vis à vis prior security interests. To read a priority rule into the Bank Act in favour of prior interests, and thereby defeat Bank Act security in all cases would have far-reaching ramifications. It would raise, for example, the question as to what types of prior interests would have such effect, which was the conundrum faced by the Chambers judge in the approach that he took.

[53] A conclusion that the Bank Act relies on provincial law to determine the consequences of holding a warehouse receipt or bill of lading avoids this problem. Such a conclusion is in keeping with the history of the Bank Act, and the wording of the sections under consideration. It enhances credit, but not at the expense of prior interests duly taken and valid under the provincial system of secured transactions. It is consistent with s. 428(1), which accords priority to Bank Act security over "rights subsequently acquired," but to make this statement does not import into the section a priority rule in favour of prior rights. If Parliament did not intend to defer to provincial property law principles, there would be no mechanism to resolve this dispute in the Bank Act, and in consequence, the courts would be thrust back upon a consideration of the principles of the general law of the province including the common law and equity in any event.

[54] In summary, a bank, by virtue of the document of title fiction, acquires whatever interest the debtor has in the property at the time the bank acquired its interest. This, of course, brings us to the question of what the debtor owned in this case when the Bank acquired its interest under the Bank Act, and this, in turn, necessarily takes us to provincial law governing proprietary interests.

...

[57] According to the PPSA, an agreement in these terms creates a security interest in the property with respect to which it is granted. Clause 2(1)(qq)(i) of the PPSA defines a security interest as "an interest in personal property that secures payment or performance of an obligation." There can be no doubt, based on the terms of the General Security Agreement mentioned above, that Mr. Buist granted to the Credit Union a security interest in all his personal property.

...

[66] There are clear incentives for lending institutions to register under the PPSA, not the least of which are the consequences of holding an unperfected security interest. By failing to register a security interest, a provincial lending institution stands to be defeated by many more provincial interests than federally created ones. The problem is the age old one of a debtor failing to disclose—either negligently or fraudulently—that it has borrowed money elsewhere. The PPSA provides a solution for the banks as well, but only if they take a security interest under that Act and not under the Bank Act in this jurisdiction, which is a solution that has been adopted elsewhere.

[67] In short, in the within appeal, the Bank cannot insist on registration under a system of which it is not a part and that it has not adopted. The Credit Union is entitled to priority over the Bank of Montreal by virtue of the Credit Union's prior security interest. The priority rule, resting as it does on ss. 427(2) and 435 of the Bank Act and provincial law, does not depend on whether the prior security interest is perfected.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

The appellate decision was upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court. While it generally agreed with that decision, the court detailed what it felt to be the correct reasoning in arriving at the result.

The Saskatchewan CA had relied on its previous decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Agricultural Credit Corp. of Saskatchewan, [1] which had laid down some basic rules for resolving priority issues:

  1. set aside the PPSA from the analysis and determine the priority as if the PPSA did not exist;
  2. determine the priority pursuant to [applicable provisions of the Bank Act] to the extent it is possible to do so;
  3. where appropriate, apply the first-in-time priority rule.

The SCC stated that, while this approach did not lead the Court of Appeal into error in deciding this case, this formulation does not accurately reflect the applicable constitutional principles at play. Step 2 is correct, but Step 1 properly means that internal priority rules of the PPSA have no bearing on determining a priority dispute between Bank Act and PPSA security interests.

However, the PPSA retains importance in resolving the priority dispute at issue:

  • As the SCC held in Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [2] the Bank Act security provisions are valid federal legislation which cannot be subject to the operation of provincially enacted priority provisions.
  • Thus, where the Bank Act contains an express priority provision that is applicable to a particular priority dispute, that provision will govern.
  • In determining what interest the debtor may have already conveyed to another creditor and, in such circumstances, what interest he or she had left to convey to the bank at the time of execution of the Bank Act security agreement, it becomes necessary to resort to the provincial property law, either at common law or under applicable provincial statutes. It is at this point that resorting to the PPSA becomes relevant.
  • It is true that the internal priority rules of the PPSA cannot be invoked to resolve the dispute. However, it does not follow that the provincial security interest created under the PPSA does not exist outside these priority rules. Nor can the fundamental changes brought about by the PPSA be ignored in determining the nature of the prior competing interest. Far from being irrelevant under the Bank Act, provincial property law plays a complementary role in defining the rights granted under the Bank Act.
  • A PPSA security interest, just as a Bank Act security interest, is a statutorily created interest and, as such, an interest recognized at law.
  • Having a PPSA security interest in collateral does not give a creditor full right and title to the collateral. Rather, a PPSA security interest gives the secured creditor an interest in the property to the extent of the debtor's obligation.

As noted by the Court:

[48] In my view, it is not open to the Bank in this appeal to now argue that the statutory interest conveyed to the Credit Union is not analogous to a proprietary right. At the time Buist gave the Bank of Montreal its Bank Act security interest, Innovation Credit Union already held a valid security interest in the nature of a fixed charge. This means that any subsequent interest could only be taken in respect of Buist's equity of redemption in the property.

[49] Nor can I accept the argument that the lack of perfection affects this characterization. Under the PPSA, the time of perfection, or the lack of perfection, determines which of two or more competing security interests takes priority. It does not determine the nature or validity of the interest. With the introduction of the PPSA, the legislation no longer declares unregistered interests void. Section 10 of the PPSA specifies what criteria must be met for a security interest to be enforceable against third parties. As the Bank acknowledges at para. 22 of its factum: "The principal requirement in a situation such as this, where the collateral is tangible equipment, is that pursuant to s. 10(1)(d) there must be a signed security agreement that contains a description of the collateral." It is not disputed that this requirement is met in this case.

...

[70] In summary, a proper interpretation of the Bank Act gives an earlier unperfected PPSA interest priority over a subsequent Bank Act interest, and there is no provision in the PPSA which subordinates an unperfected PPSA interest to a Bank Act interest.

Significance

This decision has reinforced requirements for banks to practice due diligence in lending to prospective borrowers. They will also need to consider in which cases PPSA registration will be preferable to that under the Bank Act. [3] [4] [5]

In response to this decision, the Parliament of Canada has amended the Bank Act to explicitly state that registry under its provisions will also take priority over unperfected security interests, except where a bank is already aware of their existence. [6] Royal assent was given on 29 March 2012, and the relevant provisions came into force on 24 May 2012. [7]

Related Research Articles

A lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienee and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienor or lien holder.

In the United States, bankruptcy is governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, including through adoption of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, codified in Title 11 of the United States Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

Consumer Credit Act 1974 United Kingdom legislation

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the law relating to consumer credit within the United Kingdom.

A floating charge is a security interest over a fund of changing assets of a company or other legal person. Unlike a fixed charge, which is created over ascertained and definite property, a floating charge is created over property of an ambulatory and shifting nature. Examples of such property are receivables and stocks. The floating charge The floating charge 'floats' or 'hovers' until the point at which it is converted into a fixed charge. Once it becomes a "fixed charge" the charge attaches to the specific assets of the business. This conversion of the floating charge into a fixed charge can trigger common law jurisdictions]] it is an implied term in security documents creating floating charges that a cessation of the company's right to deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business leads to automatic crystallisation. Additionally, security documents will usually include express terms that a default by the person granting the security will trigger crystallisation.

Security interest legal right granted by a debtor to a creditor over the debtors property

A security interest is a legal right granted by a debtor to a creditor over the debtor's property which enables the creditor to have recourse to the property if the debtor defaults in making payment or otherwise performing the secured obligations. One of the most common examples of a security interest is a mortgage: a person borrows money from the bank to buy a house, and they grant a mortgage over the house so that if they default in repaying the loan, the bank can sell the house and apply the proceeds to the outstanding loan.

<i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act</i> the statute that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the Act) is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

In law, perfection relates to the additional steps required to be taken in relation to a security interest in order to make it effective against third parties or to retain its effectiveness in the event of default by the grantor of the security interest. Generally speaking, once a security interest is effectively created, it gives certain rights to the holder of the security and imposes duties on the party who grants that security. However, in many legal systems, additional steps --- perfection of the security interest --- are required to enforce the security against third parties such as a liquidator.

United Kingdom insolvency law law

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986 ), the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

A UCC-1 financing statement is a legal form that a creditor files to give notice that it has or may have an interest in the personal property of a debtor. This form is filed in order to "perfect" a creditor's security interest by giving public notice that there is a right to take possession of and sell certain assets for repayment of a specific debt with a certain priority. Such notices of sale are often found in the local newspapers. Once the form has been filed, the creditor establishes a relative priority with other creditors of the debtor. This process is also called "perfecting the security interest" in the property, and this type of loan is a secured loan. A financing statement may also be filed in the real estate records by a lessor of fixtures to establish the priority of the lessor's rights against a holder of a mortgage or other lien on the real property. The creditor's rights against the debtor and the lessor's rights against the lessee are based on the credit documents and the lease, respectively, and not the financing statement.

Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 214 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets and priority of creditors in a company winding up.

ESC Corporate Services

ESC Corporate Services, previously Dye & Durham and Teranet, is a private Ontario corporation that acts as a licensed government service provider under contract with the Ministry of Government Services (MGS). This company is best known by Canadian law firms and the business community as the direct link to the government whereby ESC Corporate Services acts as a facilitator of regulatory compliance by providing access government records and government's registration and filing services. The most widely used government services facilitated by ESC Corporate Services include Incorporations, PPSA searches and registrations, Security Searches and trade name registrations.

Bankruptcy in Irish Law is a legal process, supervised by the High Court whereby the assets of a personal debtor are realised and distributed amongst his or her creditors in cases where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.

South African property law

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property,the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

Commercial insolvency in Canada

Commercial insolvency in Canada has options and procedures that are distinct from those available in consumer insolvency proceedings. It is governed by the following statutes:

The Personal Property Security Act ("PPSA") is the name given to each of the statutes passed by all common law provinces, as well as the territories, of Canada. They regulate the creation and registration of security interests in all personal property within their respective jurisdictions.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i>

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

<i>Caisse populaire Desjardins de lEst de Drummond v Canada</i>

Caisse populaire Desjardins de l'Est de Drummond v Canada is a Canadian income tax law case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has wide-ranging application to other areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction when dealing with cash collateral arrangements and security interests.

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

Thomson Geer

Thomson Geer is an independent Australian commercial law firm founded in 1885. Its predecessor firms included Thomsons Lawyers and Herbert Geer. The firm operates a full commercial law service as a fully integrated national firm with offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. It is one of the top ten firms in the country by revenue, and the seventh largest firm in Australia by headcount.

Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015), is a bankruptcy law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 1, 2015. In Caulkett, the Court held that 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) does not permit a Chapter 7 debtor to void a junior mortgage on the debtor's property when the amount of the debt secured by the senior mortgage on that property exceeds the property's current market value.

References

  1. ↑ "Agricultural Credit Corporation of Saskatchewan v. Royal Bank of Canada, 1994 CanLII 3866 (SK CA), 115 DLR (4th) 569; (1994) 7 WWR 305; 16 BLR (2d) 147; 120 Sask R 205".
  2. ↑ "Bank of Montreal v. Hall, 1990 CanLII 157 (SCC), (1990) 1 SCR 121; 65 DLR (4th) 361; (1990) 2 WWR 193; 46 BLR 161; 82 Sask R 120".
  3. ↑ Rebecca M. Morse. "Priority Disputes between the Bank Act and Provincial PPSA Legislation" (PDF). Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-02. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
  4. ↑ Jennifer Dezell and Jill Macgillivray. "Two in the Bush: When a registered security interest is not worth a bird in the hand" (PDF). Fraser Milner Casgrain . Retrieved 2011-12-14.
  5. ↑ Clayton Bangsund. "Clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada: Prior taken unperfected PPSA security v. Subsequently taken Bank Act Security" (PDF). McLennan Ross LLP. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-26. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
  6. ↑ "Financial System Review Act (S.C. 2012, c. 5), ss. 36-38". Department of Justice . Retrieved 2013-04-28.
  7. ↑ "Order Fixing May 24, 2012 as the Day on which the Majority of the Provisions of the Act Come into Force". Canada Gazette . 2012-05-17. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.