John D. Brownlie

The appellant, a beneficiary of an estate, sued the respondent bank seeking a declaration that a guarantee given to the bank by an estate company was invalid.

The guarantee was authorized by the appellant's uncle, who held a power of attorney for the appellant and was a co-executor.

The bank required the guarantee to secure a loan to the uncle's personal company.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the bank was not liable for knowing assistance because it lacked actual knowledge of the breach of trust, relying on a legal opinion letter.

The majority also held that the bank was not liable for knowing receipt, as it acted reasonably in the circumstances and had no duty to inquire further or require the appellant to obtain independent legal advice.

The appellant land developer suffered financial losses due to a two-year delay by the respondent transit authority in determining the precise location and acreage required for a new transit station on the appellant's land.

The municipality withheld development approvals during this period.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the damages resulting from the delay were the natural and reasonable consequences of the expropriation and were compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The Court emphasized that the Act is a remedial statute that must be given a broad and liberal interpretation to adequately compensate those whose lands are taken.

The contractor entered into a fixed-price construction contract with a developer after receiving assurances from the developer's bank that adequate interim financing was in place.

The developer subsequently ran out of funds and the bank refused to advance further money.

The contractor sued the bank in contract and tort, and also claimed priority over the bank's mortgage under the Mechanics' Lien Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while no contract existed between the bank and the contractor, the bank was liable for negligent misrepresentation because it negligently assured the contractor of adequate financing without disclosing the limitations of the loan.

The Court also held that section 4 of the Interest Act did not apply to limit the bank's interest rate, and the bank was not estopped from asserting its priority as mortgagee.

The contractor entered into a fixed-price construction contract with a developer after receiving assurances from the developer's bank that adequate interim financing was in place.

The developer subsequently ran out of funds and the bank refused to advance further money.

The contractor sued the bank in contract and tort, and also claimed priority over the bank's mortgage under the Mechanics' Lien Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while no contract existed between the bank and the contractor, the bank was liable for negligent misrepresentation because it negligently assured the contractor of adequate financing without disclosing the limitations of the loan.

The Court also held that section 4 of the Interest Act did not apply to limit the bank's interest rate, and the bank was not estopped from asserting its priority as mortgagee.