Supreme Court of Canada
Racette v. The King, [1942] S.C.R. 464
Date: 1942-10-06.
Marie E. Racette (Suppliant) Appellant;
and
His Majesty The King (Defendant). Respondent.
and
The Royal Bank of Canada (Third Party).
1942: June 23; 1942: October 6.
Present: Duff C.J. and Rinfret, Kerwin, Hudson and Taschereau JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA
Crown—War loan bond—Transfer by owner—Made in form approved by Minister of Finance—Signature of registered owner guaranteed by bank—Owner denying having executed transfer—Liability of the Crown.
[Page 465]
Transfer of war loan bonds of the Dominion of Canada had been made on a form required by regulations passed by order in council under the provisions of section 15 of c. 178, R.S.C, 1927. At the foot of such form, it was specified that the "signature of the registered owner, if not known at the office of transfer, must be guaranteed by a bank * * *".
Held that the liability of the Crown can only be discharged by evidence that the (registered owner of the bond has, in fact, duly executed a written instrument of transfer on a form approved by the Minister of Finance.—The mere reception by the Crown, of such form purporting to be signed by the owner and containing the warranty of a bank as to the signature of the registered owner, is not sufficient in itself to liberate the Crown from the payment of the bond.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, Angers J., dismissing the appellant's action against the Crown for the recovery of the amount of war loan bonds.
J. P. Charbonneau K.C. for the appellant.
Roger Ouimet for the respondent.
Hazen Hansard for the third party.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Rinfret J.—Nous n'arrivons pas à donner aux règlements adoptés par le gouverneur en conseil, sous l'empire de la section 15 du chapitre 178 des Statuts Revisés du Canada, 1927, l'interprétation que leur a attribuée l'honorable juge de la Cour d'Echiquier du Canada.
Le transfert des obligations qui appartenaient à la pétitionnaire paraît bien avoir été fait sur la formule requise par ces règlements; cette formule, au bas, contient bien la mention:
signature of the registered owner, if not known at the office of transfer, must be guaranteed by a bank or other financial institution acceptable by the Department;
et, au-dessous de cette mention, apparaît bien la déclaration suivante:
For the Royal Bank of Canada, St. Catherine & Bleury streets, Montreal.
(signed) H. A. Caswell, manager.
mais les règlements invoqués par l'intimé n'ont pas l'effet qu'il prétend et que leur a accordé le jugement porté en
[Page 466]
appel. Ils ne prescrivent pas que si le Ministre des Finances reçoit une formule ainsi libellée, il sera "justifié d'effectuer le transfert ", ainsi que le dit le jugement, et, que le Gouvernement sera validement libéré, comme le décide ce jugement.
Il est probable que le fait d'exiger la garantie par une banque est de réserver au Gouvernement un recours contre la banque qui certifie l'authenticité de la signature du cédant; mais le règlement ne déclare pas que cette garantie ou ce certificat sera tenu pour décisif et indiscutable à rencontre du véritable propriétaire des obligations qui font l'objet du transfert.
Au contraire, le règlement précise:
In order to effect the transfer of a Dominion of Canada War or Victory Bond, there must be presented * * * a written instrument of transfer in form approved by the Minister duly executed by the registered holder.
Or la pétitionnaire était la propriétaire enregistrée des obligations dont elle réclame le paiement; et ce qu'elle allègue, c'est que précisément elle n'en a jamais effectué ("duly executed") le transfert.
L'unique motif du jugement de première instance ne saurait donc être accepté; et il faut trouver ailleurs la solution de cette cause.
***
The judgment then proceeds in giving the reasons why, in the opinion of the Court, there should be a new trial, mainly on the ground that the facts and circumstances of the case have not been sufficiently disclosed by the evidence and that the trial judge, having decided the case solely on the question of construction mentioned in the head-note, has thus made no findings as to the facts of the case and the credibility of the witnesses.
Appeal allowed with costs; new trial ordered.
Solicitors for the appellant: Charbonneau, Charbonneau & Charlebois.
Solicitor for the respondent: Roger Ouimet.
Solicitors for the third party: Montgomery, McMichael, Common & Howard.