Royal Bank of Canada v Sutherland, 2014 ABQB 776

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v Sutherland, 2014 ABQB 776 Date: 20141216 Docket: 1201 12101 Registry: Calgary Between: Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff - and - John A. Sutherland and Bank of Montreal Defendants _______________________________________________________ Supplementary Reasons of J.B. Hanebury , Master in Chambers _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Subsequent to the release of my decision in this matter, Royal Bank of Canada v. Sutherland , 2014 ABQB 724 , I received a letter from Mr.

Sutherland objecting to my proceeding to a determination without providing an opportunity to provide further written argument, which, he says, he understood was going to be the case. [ 2 ] I have listened to the recording of this matter and during the course of reply by counsel for the Royal Bank I asked counsel questions as to the applicability of the relevant British Columbia or Alberta legislation, as it appeared there were a number of issues raised by the facts, including: the meeting with the Bank representatives occurred in Calgary in relation to the power of attorney; the cheque in issue was drawn on a bank in Penticton, British Columbia; one power of attorney was executed in Alberta; one power of attorney was executed in British Columbia; and, the legislation in British Columbia had changed during the relevant time period.

Counsel was unable to answer my questions which led to my suggestion that further written argument would be necessary. [ 3 ] It subsequently came to light as a result of a further question, that there was no evidence before the Court from either party as to which power of attorney was served on the Bank. Without that information any written arguments would be, at least in part, hypothetical. The Court does not usually consider hypothetical arguments. It is the responsibility of the parties to put the facts before the

court. [see para’s 14, 15 of my decision]. As a result, I made no arrangements at the conclusion of the hearing for the provision of written arguments. In light of this evidentiary gap, the hearing concluded with my advice that I was going to consider the matter further to see if there was a way that I could be useful. [ 4 ] As my ultimate decision indicates, my further review of this matter led to my conclusion that the missing evidence and law were irrelevant as the matter could be determined on a single narrow issue. The decision was issued.

There was no need for written argument. [ 5 ] Counsel for the Royal Bank has provided a draft order to Mr. Sutherland. He has not responded to it within the requisite ten days. Assuming his letter to the Court was his only form of objection, I will sign the order and return it to counsel. Heard on the 13 th day of December, 2014. Dated at City of Calgary, Alberta this 16 th day of December, 2014. J.B. Hanebury M.C.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Lorne J. Graburn Dentons Canada LLP and Emily Denstedt Student at Law - Dentons Canada LLP for the Plaintiff John A. Sutherland for the Defendant for John A. Sutherland