T-591-86
Saskatchewan Co-operative Credit Society Lim
ited (Plaintiff)
v.
The Honourable Michael Wilson, in his capacity
as Minister of Finance of Canada and Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporation (Defendants)
INDEXED AS: SASKATCHEWAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIE
TY LTD. V. CANADA (MINISTER OF FINANCE) (T.D.)
Trial Division, Collier J.—Toronto, September 9
and 10, 1989; Ottawa, January 24, 1990.
Financial institutions — Definitions of "deposit" in Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and in Financial Institu
tions Depositors Compensation Act including all monies
received by institution in usual course of business, that obli
gated to repay on demand or in accordance with receipt of
payment instrument issued for money received — Purpose of
legislation to protect small investors, give relief to depositors
prejudiced by failure of three financial institutions — Plaintiff
agreeing to advance funds to now failed mortgage investment
corporation to be loaned — Subsequently assigning interest in
agreement to Canadian Commercial Bank for promissory note
— Bank in liquidation — Plaintiff not depositor — "Monies"
not encompassing plaintiffs rights and interests in Mortgage
Loan Participation Agreement — In advancing funds to Bank,
plaintiff not lending money to Bank with expectation Bank
would "hold" money for it, but to have money loaned out —
Second transaction sale of asset — Promissory note not repre
senting obligation to repay money, but to pay for assets.
This was an action for a declaration that the plaintiff was a
depositor of the Canadian Commercial Bank, and a writ of
mandamus directing the Canada Deposit Insurance Corpora
tion and the defendants to pay the plaintiff $60,000 and
$2,953,271.28 respectively. The plaintiff had entered into a
Mortgage Loan Participation agreement with Canadian Com
mercial Bank (CCB) Mortgage Investment Corporation,
whereby the plaintiff would advance funds to the former, which
would in turn be advanced to borrowers. After advancing
$2,953,271.28 the plaintiff refused to make any further loan
advances, as it was worried about the security of its investment.
The plaintiff assigned its interest in the Mortgage Loan Partici
pation agreement to the Canadian Commercial Bank in return
for a promissory note. Prior to payment, the Bank was liquidat
ed. The plaintiff applied for payment of deposit insurance in
the amount of $60,000 under the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act and for payment of $2,953,271.28 under the
Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation Act. The
applications were rejected. The former Act provides insurance
of up to $60,000 for the benefit of persons having deposits with
various financial institutions in this country and the latter
authorizes compensation of the depositors of the Canadian
Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation
and the Northland Bank who maintained deposits in excess of
the $60,000. The statutes define "deposit" as including all
monies received by an institution in the usual course of busi
ness, that it is obligated to repay either on demand or in
accordance with the provisions of any receipt of payment issued
by it in exchange for the money received. The issue was
whether the plaintiff was a depositor.
Held, the action should be dismissed.
A deposit is a contract by which a customer lends money to a
bank. The terms of the loan may vary as agreed upon by the
banker and the customer. In the absence of such expressly
agreed upon terms, the common law dictates that what is
intended is a loan that is repayable on demand.
Applying the statutory definitions of "deposit", the question
was whether the Bank received monies from the plaintiff when
it acquired the plaintiff's rights and interests in the Mortgage
Loan Participation Agreement. The word "monies" does not
encompass such rights. The purpose of the two Acts is to
protect investors who have deposited money with financial
institutions and who are not in a position to determine the
financial viability of those institutions. The intent of the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act is to ensure the
safety of the deposits of small investors. The Financial Institu
tions Depositors Compensation Act was enacted to compensate
for the losses of depositors due to the failure of three specific
financial institutions. The plaintiff entered into two business
transactions—purchase of an investment, namely acquisition of
a share in a mortgage loan, and sale of that investment on
negotiated terms as to price, time of payment of the purchase
price and interest. Neither of these transactions bore any
indicia of a deposit. As to the first transaction, the plaintiff did
not advance funds to the Bank for safekeeping or with the
expectation that the Bank would "hold" money for it; it was
merely fulfilling its obligation under the Mortgage Loan Par
ticipation Agreement. The plaintiff did not expect to receive
interest from the Bank. Any interest earned was to come
directly from borrowers. The second transaction was nothing
more than sale of an asset.
One of the criteria of a deposit is that the financial institu
tion is obligated to repay the money. The promissory note
issued by the Bank did not represent an obligation to repay
money. It was representative of the Bank's obligation to make
payment for certain assets.
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS JUDICIALLY
CONSIDERED
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. C-30, Sch., s. 2 (as enacted by S.C. 1976-77, c.
27, s. 9).
Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation Act,
S.C. 1985, c. 51, s. 2.
Loan Companies Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-12.
CASES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED
CONSIDERED:
R. v. Davenport, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 569 (C.A.).
COUNSEL:
Peter Foley, Q.C. and Ray C. Rutman for
plaintiff.
Eric A. Bowie, Q.C. and Barbara A. Mclsaac
for defendants.
SOLICITORS:
Gauley & Co., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for
plaintiff.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
defendants.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
COLLIER J.: The plaintiff is a federally incorpo
rated company which carries on its activities pur
suant to the federal Loan Companies Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. L-12. It brings action against the defen
dants, the Minister of Finance of Canada and the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, for a dec
laration that it is a depositor of the Canadian
Commercial Bank and accordingly, that it is en
titled to payment of deposit insurance in the
amount of $60,000 and compensation by the
defendants in the amount of $2,953,271.28 as
evidenced by a promissory note issued to the plain
tiff by the Canadian Commercial Bank.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. On
December 24, 1981, a federally incorporated mort
gage loan company called Canadian Commercial
Bank Mortgage Investment Corporation, entered
into an agreement whereby it agreed to lend to
certain companies (hereinafter referred to as the
borrowers) the sum of $15,000,000 for the con
struction of an office building in downtown Cal-
gary. To that end, a mortgage was granted by
CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation on Febru-
ary 23, 1982. At all material times, the Canadian
Commercial Bank acted as a financial and invest
ment advisor to CCB Mortgage Investment
Corporation.
In January 1982, participation interests in the
loan were syndicated to various institutional lend
ers, including the plaintiff, pursuant to a Mortgage
Loan Participation Agreement. A participation
syndicate of this nature occurs where the lead
bank initially loans the full amount of the mort
gage, then farms out participation to other entities.
The terms of the agreement provided, inter alia,
that the plaintiff would advance to CCB Mortgage
Investment Corporation, by way of interim pay
ments, the amount of $4,000,000. It would then be
advanced by CCB Mortgage Investment Corpora
tion to the borrowers pursuant to the loan agree
ment. Upon making an advance, the plaintiff
would receive a participation certificate.
On January 22, 1982, the plaintiff, along with
the other participants in the Mortgage Loan Par
ticipation Agreement, entered into a Mortgage
Loan Administrative Agreement with the Canadi-
an Commercial Bank. Pursuant to that agreement,
the Bank was to administer the loan for a fee,
payable by the plaintiff and other participants.
Construction of the office building commenced
in early 1982. During the course of construction,
the plaintiff advanced funds, from time to time, to
CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation, pursuant
to the Mortgage Loan Participation Agreement.
CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation, in turn,
made several loan advances to the borrowers. The
borrowers became involved in numerous law suits
relating to the construction and financing of the
building. This caused CCB Mortgage Investment
Corporation to cease making further loan
advances. In addition, foreclosure relief was sought
based on certain defaults by the borrowers under
the mortgage. By that time, the plaintiff had
advanced a total of $2,953,271.28 and was becom
ing increasingly concerned about the viability of
the project and the security of the mortgage
investment.
Thereafter, the Canadian Commercial Bank,
acting in its capacity as administrator of the Mort
gage Loan Participation Agreement and as adviser
to CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation,
attempted to propose and negotiate various settle
ments in an effort to allow completion of the
building project. In June of 1984, the plaintiff
refused to make any further loan advances pursu
ant to the Mortgage Loan Participation Agree
ment. In addition, the plaintiff refused to partici
pate in a settlement proposed by the Canadian
Commercial Bank whereby the mortgagee would
realize on the security on behalf of the participants
and then attempt to sell the property.
In an effort to salvage the investment and effect
a settlement, the Canadian Commercial Bank
agreed to purchase the interest of the plaintiff and
the other participants in the Mortgage Loan Par
ticipation Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of an
Assignment Agreement dated June 8, 1984, the
plaintiff assigned and transferred its interest in the
Mortgage Loan Participation Agreement and the
mortgage, including its right to receive repayment
of funds previously advanced. In consideration, the
Canadian Commercial Bank agreed to pay to the
plaintiff the sum of $2,953,271.28, being repay
ment in full of the plaintiff's advance under the
Mortgage Loan Participation Agreement. Pay
ment was to be made on July 8, 1986. As evidence
of this obligation, the Canadian Commercial Bank
gave a promissory note to the plaintiff.
On September 3, 1985, Price Waterhouse Lim
ited was appointed as provisional liquidator of the
Canadian Commercial Bank for the purpose of
proceeding with the liquidation and winding up of
the Bank. The Bank has since remained in liquida
tion under court order. It is insolvent and is unable
to pay the plaintiff the amount due to it under the
terms of the promissory note.
Following the Canadian Commercial Bank's
liquidation, the plaintiff made application for the
payment of deposit insurance in the sum of
$60,000 as provided for under the terms of the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. C-3, as amended, ("CDICA") and
for payment of the sum of $2,953,271.28 as pro
vided for under the terms of the Financial Institu
tions Depositors Compensation Act, S.C. 1985,
c. 51 ("FIDCA"). The plaintiff's applications were
rejected on March 11, 1986, on the grounds it was
not a depositor of the Canadian Commercial Bank
as required by the legislation.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act
provides insurance of up to $60,000 for the benefit
of persons having deposits with various financial
institutions in this country. The Financial Institu
tions Depositors Compensation Act authorizes the
Government of Canada to compensate the deposi
tors of the Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB
Mortgage Investment Corporation and the North-
land Bank, who maintained deposits in excess of
the $60,000 amount protected by the Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
The plaintiff pleads that the defendants have
wrongfully rejected its application under the
CDICA and the FIDCA. It seeks from this Court
a declaration that it is a depositor of the Canadian
Commercial Bank as that term is defined in the
legislation, and a writ of mandamus directing the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the
defendants, or either of them, to pay to the plain
tiff $60,000 and $2,953,271.28 respectively.
The sole issue before this Court is whether the
plaintiff is a depositor of the Canadian Commer
cial Bank with the promissory note being evidence
of such a deposit.
The word "deposit" is defined in section 2 of the
Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation
Act as follows:
2....
"deposit" means the unpaid balance of the aggregate of moneys
received or held by a financial institution, from or on behalf
of a person in the usual course of business, including any
interest accrued or payable to the person, for which the
financial institution
(a) has given or is obligated to give credit to that person's
account or has issued or is obligated to issue a receipt,
certificate, debenture (other than a debenture issued by a
chartered bank), transferable instrument, draft, certified
draft or cheque, traveller's cheque, prepaid letter of credit,
money order or other instrument in respect of which the
financial institution is primarily liable, and
(b) is obligated to repay the moneys on a fixed day, on
demand or within a specified period of time following
demand;
A virtually identical definition is given the word
in subsection 2(1) of the Schedule to the Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, [as enacted by
S.C. 1976-77, c. 27, s. 9] :
2. (1) For the purposes of this Act and the by-laws of the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, "deposit" means the
unpaid balance of the aggregate of moneys received or held by
a federal or provincial institution within the meaning of this
Act, from or on behalf of a person in the usual course of
business, for which the institution
(a) has given or is obligated to give credit to that person's
account or has issued or is obligated to issue a receipt,
certificate, debenture (other than a debenture issued by a
chartered bank), transferable instrument, draft, certified
draft or cheque, traveller's cheque, prepaid letter of credit,
money order or other instrument in respect of which the
institution is primarily liable, and
(b) is obligated to repay the moneys on a fixed day, on
demand by the depositor or within a specified period of time
following demand by the depositor,
It is the plaintiff's position it meets the criteria
of a depositor as set out in these definitions. That
is, there was an unpaid balance of monies, received
and held by the Canadian Commercial Bank, from
the plaintiff, in the usual course of the Bank's
business, for which the Bank issued a transferable
instrument upon which it was primarily liable and
for which it was obligated to pay on a fixed day.
The plaintiff submits that when the Canadian
Commercial Bank received the plaintiffs interest
in the syndicated mortgage loan, pursuant to the
terms of the Assignment Agreement, the Bank
received monies. This assertion is based upon a
liberal interpretation of the word monies as includ
ing the right to receive money. Accordingly, the
plaintiff maintains that when the Canadian Com
mercial Bank received the plaintiff's interest in the
syndicated mortgage loan, it received a chose in
action, in particular, a right to receive money.
Further, the plaintiff relies on the established
principle that a bank "holds" money for its cus
tomers as a debtor, in the sense that it must be
acknowledged and eventually repaid. The bank's
indebtedness to its customers may be evidenced by
way of a deposit receipt which, the plaintiff sub
mits, has all the qualities of a promissory note. By
issuing a promissory note, the Canadian Commer
cial Bank acknowledged that a debt was owed by
the Bank for the eventual repayment of money.
The Bank's obligations under the promissory note
were unconditional. The plaintiff maintains that
having issued an unconditional promissory note as
evidence of a deposit, it was incumbent upon the
Canadian Commercial Bank to "hold" monies for
eventual repayment of the note.
The plaintiff further alleges the money was
received by the Canadian Commercial Bank in its
usual course of business. For the purpose of com
pensating those who suffered losses as a result of
the Bank's insolvency, the plaintiff urges this
Court to give the phrase "usual course of business"
a liberal interpretation so as to achieve the purpose
of the legislation. The term banking, according to
the plaintiff, is not a technical term and is not
capable of precise definition. The "business" of
banking, therefore, is wide enough to include every
transaction coming within the legitimate business
of banking. A bank's "usual course of business"
refers to the commercial and financial activities
that a bank engages in with its customers, whereby
debtor and creditor relationships are established
for financial consideration.
In the plaintiff's view, therefore, the definition
of "deposit" is broadly enough stated in the
Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation
Act and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corpora
tion Act to include the dealings which occurred
between itself and the Canadian Commercial
Bank. If significant limitations were intended, such
intention would have been clearly expressed by
Parliament.
The defendants' position, simply stated, is that
the plaintiff is not a depositor of the Canadian
Commercial Bank and is, accordingly, not entitled
to compensation under either statute.
The defendants maintain the Canadian Com
mercial Bank did not receive money from the
plaintiff when it purchased the plaintiff's interest
in the Mortgage Loan Participation Agreement
and issued the promissory note to the plaintiff. The
correct approach, according to the defendant, is
not to consider and define the word monies in
vacuo, but rather to consider the word in its
context and ascertain what Parliament intended
the word to mean in context. The appropriate
meaning of the word "monies", as it appears in the
definition of "deposit", is cash and such equiva
lents of cash as are generally used as a medium of
exchange or are immediately convertible to cash at
their face value. This would include cheques,
Canada Savings Bonds, travellers cheques and
bond coupons due and payable. It would not
include real property, mortgages nor, as in the
present case, an interest in a mortgage.
Further, the defendants assert the Canadian
Commercial Bank did not hold monies on behalf of
the plaintiff in the usual course of business. In its
context, the expression "usual course of business"
refers to the deposit-taking business of the Canadi-
an Commercial Bank. The plaintiff's sale of their
interest in the mortgage loan to the Canadian
Commercial Bank does not, in the defendants'
submission, bear any indicia of a deposit.
The defendants' contention is that the liability
in respect of the promissory note in favour of the
plaintiff was not recorded in the account records
and financial statements of the Canadian Com
mercial Bank along with other deposits. It was,
instead, shown as an offsetting entry against the
Bank's interest in the loan itself. The actual repay
ment of the promissory note was intended to take
place in July of 1986 and no monies were set aside
or were being held by the Canadian Commercial
Bank on behalf of the plaintiff. The liability
attached to the note, it was said, was an unfunded
contingent liability.
The task now before me is to make a determina
tion as to whether the plaintiff was a depositor of
the Canadian Commercial Bank. If so, then the
plaintiff is entitled to compensation in the amount
of $60,000 under the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act and to $2,953,271.28 under the
Financial Institutions Depositors Compensation
Act.
It became obvious, during the course of this
hearing, that a precise definition of the word
"deposit" is a difficult, if not impossible task. To
properly define the term in the context of banking
business, it is necessary to consider the contractual
nature of the banking relationship, which has been
characterized in the jurisprudence as one of debtor
and creditor. In R. v. Davenport, [1954] 1 W.L.R.
569 (C.A.), Lord Goddard C.J. described the rela
tionship in the following terms, at page 571:
But although one talks about people having money in a bank, it
should be understood that the only person who has money in a
bank is a banker. If I pay money into my bank either by paying
cash or a cheque, that money at once becomes the money of the
banker. The relationship between banker and customer is that
of debtor and creditor. He does not hold my money as an agent
or trustee; the leading case of Foley v. Hill [(1844), 1 P.H. 399]
exploded that idea. Directly the money is paid into the bank it
becomes the banker's money, and the contract between the
banker and the customer is that the banker receives a loan of
money from the customer against his promise to honour the
customer's cheques on demand. When the banker is paying out,
whether he pays in cash over the counter or whether he is
crediting the bank account of somebody else, he is paying out
his own money, not the customer's money; he is debiting the
customer's account. The customer has a chose in action, that is
to say, a right to expect that the banker will honour his cheque.
Therefore, in the present case, the money paid on these cheques
was the banker's money, but it led to the customer's account
being debited.
As I see it, a deposit is a contract by which a
customer lends money to a bank. The terms of the
loan may vary as agreed upon by the banker and
the customer. In the absence of such expressly
agreed upon terms, the common law dictates that
what is intended is a loan that is repayable on
demand.
The meaning of the word continues to multiply
as one turns from the common law to consider its
meaning in statutes of general application. As the
plaintiff suggests, it is given a very broad meaning
in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act
and the Financial Institutions Depositors Com
pensation Act. It includes all monies received by
an institution in the usual course of business, that
it is obligated to repay either on demand or in
accordance with the provisions of any receipt of
payment instrument issued by it in exchange for
the money received.
Applying that definition to the facts of this case,
the question which must be answered is whether
the Canadian Commercial Bank received monies
from the plaintiff when it acquired the plaintiffs
rights and interests in the Mortgage Loan Partici
pation Agreement.
The word "monies", as it appears in the defini
tion of "deposit" in the legislation, does not, in my
view, encompass such rights. In coming to that
conclusion, I have applied the widely accepted
principle of statutory interpretation that the words
of an Act are to be read in their entire context and
in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoni
ously with the scheme and object of the Act and
the intention of Parliament.
It is clear, upon reading the Financial Institu
tions Depositors Compensation Act and the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, that
the purpose of the enactments are to protect inves
tors who have deposited money with financial
institutions in this country and who are not in a
position to determine the financial viability of
those institutions. The intent of the Canada
Deposit Insurance Corporation Act is to ensure
the safety of the deposits of small investors up to
$60,000. The Financial Institutions Depositors
Compensation Act is legislation specifically aimed
to remedy the losses suffered by depositors as a
result of the failure of the Canadian Commercial
Bank, the CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation
and the Northland Bank. The legislation is
designed to compensate those depositors who elect
ed to show faith in these financial institutions.
I cannot agree with the plaintiff that either
enactment was designed to provide compensation
for the type of loss it has incurred. The fact is the
plaintiff entered into two separate business trans
actions. The first was the purchase of an invest
ment in January of 1982; namely, the acquisition
of a share in a mortgage loan. This transaction is
evidenced by the Mortgage Loan Participation
Agreement, paragraph 2.1 of which provides as
follows:
2.1 The Lender grants to each of the Participants and each of
the Participants hereby accepts, subject to the terms of this
Agreement and the Mortgage Commitment, a participation in
the Mortgage Loan. Each of the Participants covenants and
agrees with the Lender to provide that portion of the Mortgage
Loan set out opposite its name below:
PARTICIPANT PORTION OF
LOAN
REIT
$3,000,000
Saskatchewan $4,000,000
Nova Scotia $3,000,000
The Lender covenants and agrees with the Participants to
provide that portion of the Mortgage Loan set out below:
LENDER PORTION OF
LOAN
MIC $5,000,000
The second transaction was the sale of that
investment in 1984 to the Canadian Commercial
Bank on negotiated terms as to price, time of
payment of the purchase price, and interest. Evi
dence of this transaction is found in the Assign
ment Agreement which provides, in part, as
follows:
1. Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan hereby assign and transfer
to the Bank all of their interest in the Mortgage and the
Mortgage Loan Participation Agreement to the Bank.
2. The effective date for the within transfer of interest shall be
June 8, 1984.
3. In consideration of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan assign
ing their interest in the said Mortgage and the said Mortgage
Loan Participation Agreement, the Bank covenants and agrees
to pay the following:
(a) To Saskatchewan Co-operative Credit Society Limited
the sum of TWO MILLION, NINE HUNDRED FIFTY
THREE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE &
28/100 ($2,953,271.28) DOLLARS, payable on July 8,
1986, without interest.
(b) To Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Company the sum of
TWO MILLION, TWO HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND,
SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN & 54/100
($2,214,677.54) DOLLARS, payable on July 8, 1986,
without interest.
I agree with the defendants that neither of these
transactions bear any indicia of a deposit as that
word has come to mean at common law or as it is
defined in the legislation.
As for the first transaction, when the plaintiff
advanced money to the Canadian Commercial
Bank pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Loan
Participation Agreement, it was not lending money
to the Bank as a customer does upon making a
deposit. Rather, it was advancing funds for the
express purpose of having the money forwarded to
the borrowers. The only reason it was given to the
Canadian Commercial Bank was because of the
Bank's role as administrator of the mortgage loan
pursuant to the Administration Agreement entered
into between the Bank and the plaintiff. The plain
tiff did not, in my opinion, advance funds to the
Bank for safekeeping or with the expectation that
the Bank would "hold" money for it; it was merely
fulfilling its obligation under the Mortgage Loan
Participation Agreement. Furthermore, the plain
tiff did not expect to receive interest from the
Canadian Commercial Bank. Any interest earned
was to come directly from the borrowers.
As for the second transaction, I conclude it
represents nothing more than the sale of an asset
by the plaintiff. In an effort to protect its invest
ment, the plaintiff made a decision to assign its
rights and interests in the Mortgage Loan Partici
pation Agreement to the Canadian Commercial
Bank in return for a promissory note.
It must also be noted that one of the criteria of a
deposit, as defined in the legislation, is that the
financial institution is obligated to repay the
money. In this case, it would be inappropriate to
refer to the Canadian Commercial Bank's obliga
tion to the plaintiff as being an obligation to pay
back money. The promissory note issued to the
plaintiff by the Bank does not represent an obliga
tion to pay back money. Rather, it is representa
tive of the Bank's obligation to make payment for
certain assets, namely, the plaintiffs rights and
interests in the Mortgage Loan Participation
Agreement, purchased by the Bank in June of
1984.
Accordingly, I am unable to find that the
Canadian Commercial Bank received money from
the plaintiff when it purchased the plaintiff's
rights and interests in the Mortgage Loan Partici
pation Agreement. The promissory note held by
the plaintiff is not evidence of a deposit but rather
evidence of an unpaid debt as a result of the
plaintiff's sale of an asset to the Canadian Com
mercial Bank.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's action
is dismissed. The defendants are entitled to their
costs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.