ARTICLE
3 January 2014

Guarantor's Application For Leave To Appeal In The Samson Case Dismissed By The Supreme Court Of Canada

GW
Gowling WLG

Contributor

Gowling WLG is an international law firm built on the belief that the best way to serve clients is to be in tune with their world, aligned with their opportunity and ambitious for their success. Our 1,400+ legal professionals and support teams apply in-depth sector expertise to understand and support our clients’ businesses.
In a recent edition of Fully Secured (June 26, 2013 – Volume 4, No. 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision inin Samson and its impact on the enforceability of standard form guarantees
Canada Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In a recent edition of Fully Secured (June 26, 2013 – Volume 4, No. 2), we reported on the  Ontario Court of Appeal's decision inin Samson1 and its impact on the enforceability of standard form guarantees. In Samson, the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which held that a continuing guarantee of a borrower's present and future debt was unenforceable on the basis that the guarantor had not consented to material changes to the underlying loan agreement.  In summarizing its conclusions, the Court of Appeal determined that while the increased loan advances made by the lender to the borrower were material alterations to the principal loan agreement, they were also contemplated by the parties, permitted by the clear language of the guarantee, and inherent in a continuing all accounts guarantee that contemplates increases in the size of the underlying indebtedness.

The Guarantor applied for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision, and that application was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 14, 2013. Lenders can take comfort that the clear language of a standard form guarantee continues to be enforceable in accordance with its specific terms in circumstances similar to those present in Samson. 

Footnotes

1 Royal Bank of Canada v. Samson Management & Solutions Ltd., 2013 ONCA 313 [Samson].

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More