|
''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''. ==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 that it had a priority claim over the proceeds of the disposition of that property. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|