ROYAL BANK OF CANADA

V. GILL
Were
gonna
sue yo
u!!

Arshika Chandranath
Jessica Fortier
BUS 393 | Commercial Law

AGENDA
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Summary of Events (TIMEline)
Original case and judgment
Appeal case
Appellants arguments
Judges Decision
Our opinion
Discussion

Appellant and Respondent

Original case
Plaintiff: Royal Bank of Canada (RBC)
Defendant: Avtar Gill

Appeal case
Appellant: Avtar Gill
Respondent: Royal bank of canada

Brief overview
Jaginder Singh Gill
Customer)of)RBC)branch)near)
Mission))
He)was)a)successful)owner)of)a)berry)
farm))
No)formal)schooling)in)English))

Avtar Gill
Son)of)Jaginder))
Sophis@cated)business)man))
Worked)as)a)loan)interviewer)for)a)
credit)union))
Managed)his)fathers)berry)farm))
Procient)in)English))

RBC)originally)was)suing)Gill)for)defaul@ng)on)a)guarantee)
RBC)won)the)original)case,)Gill)appealed)it))

Summary of events
February,)1981)

Sept.)23,)1982)

Avtar)sought)to)
borrow)$87,000)
from)RBC))

April)15,)1981)
)Avtar)and)his)wife)
signed)a)promissory)
note)and)executed)
a)mortgage)against)
the)property))

RBC))made)formal)
demand)for)
payment)from)Avtar)
and)Jaginder)

April)15,)1981)
Jaginder)
accompanied)
Avtar)to)the)bank)
and)signed)the)
guarantee)

June)2,)1984)
Jaginder)passed)
away)

Summary of events
January)15,)1988)

Dec.)4,)1984)

Appeal)case)took)
place)

RBC)launched)a)pe@@on)
against)Avtar)

October)9,)1986)
Original)caseQQ)
Royal)Bank)of)
Canada)v.)Gill)

ORIGINAL CASE
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
v. GILL
October 9th, 1986

Plaintiff
RBC

Defendant
Avtar GIll

Original case issues

Was it Jaginders act to sign the contract, or was it
non est factum?
What are the banks obligations to Jaginder, as a
non-English speaking customer?

Original case
Judges Decision :
allow the claim against the estate. Gill found responsible.

Judges reasoning:
There)was)no)misrepresentaAon)
on)behalf)of)the)bank))
Avtar)and)Jaginder)acted)carelessly))
Non)est)factum)defence)was)invalid))

I#do#not#consider#that#
the#father#acted#
reasonably#in#signing#
[the]#document"

Appeal CASE
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
v. GILL
January 15th, 1988

appellant
Avtar Gill

Respondent
RBC

Appellants arguments
Judge erred in law in:

1.
2.
3.

Holding the appellants to be careless in executing a guarantee

without considering all the circumstances of the case.
Not holding that the bank was careless in respect of the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the guarantee.
Failing to hold that the defence of non est factum was available
to the estate.

Argument #1: Judges Reasoning

Appellant argument #1:
We were not careless in
Executing the guarantee

Judge:
There was abundant evidence of
carelessness on the part of the
appellants.

Judges reasoning:
Jaginder)and)Avtar)did)not)act)as)a)reasonable)person)would)have.)
Jaginder)was)careless)in)failing)to)ask)for)an)explana@on)of)the)document.)
Avtars)experience)as)a)loan)interviewer)for)a)credit)union)suggests)he)is)a)
reasonable)expert,)thus,)should)have)known)beTer.))

Argument #2: Judges Reasoning

Appellant argument #2:

Judge:

the bank was careless in

the execution of the
guarantee

Or#requested#by#me,#yeah.##

GILL :

Or#requested#by#you?#

Q:

##and#she#said,#your#dad#has#to#sign#it.#I#said,#Here,#sign#it,#and#
we#were#out#of#the#bank#in#less#than#ve#minutes.#No#copies#of#
any#forms#were#given#to#my#dad#at#that#Bme#or#to#myself.#

GILL :

There was no misrepresentation

on behalf of the bank and no
evidence to suggest carelessness

Argument #3: Non Est Factum

Non est Factum:
It is not my deed
)
Where)a)party)is)unaware)of)the)nature)of)the)document)they)signed.)

A successful plea of non est factum requires existence of 2 factors:

1.
2.

The)signer)of)the)agreement)was)not)careless)in)signing.)
)
)
A)radical)dierence)between)the)document)which)was)signed)and)
what)the)signer)thought)he)was)signing.))

Argument #3: Judges Reasoning

Non est Factum IS available

Judge:
Defence is Not available

#I#do#not#think#the#evidence#supports#the#inference#that#the#father#thought#
he#was#signing#something#fundamentally#dierent#from#a#guarantee.#

Jaginder))knew)that)it)was)a)document)of)business)
signicance)for)the)benet)of)his)son.)
)
Avtar)told)him)he)had)to)sign.)
)
Jaginder)willingly)accompanied)Avtar)to)the)bank.)

Appellant argument #3:

Judges decision
1. We were not careless in executing the guarantee.
The bank was careless in the execution of the
2. guarantee.
3. Non Est Factum Defence is available.

There is evidence of carelessness of

both Jaginder and Avtar Gill.
There is no evidence of carelessness or
misrepresentation on behalf of RBC.
Defence is not available.

judge 1:

)I)think)the)[original])judge)was)right)and)I)would)dismiss)the)appeal.)

Judge 2:

I)agree.)

Judge 3:

I)agree.)

Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Our opinion
We)agreed)with)both)the)original)judgment)and)the)appeal)
judgment.)
)
Jaginder)and)Avtar)were)careless.)
)
Bank)was)not)careless.)
)
Non)est)factum)defence)does)not)hold)up.)
)

Discussion questions

Q:

Under what circumstances do you think Gills Non est Factum

defence would have held in court?

Q:

How can banks prevent this type of issue when dealing with
non-English speaking customers?

Q:

Given the facts in the case, who do you think is more at fault:
Avtar or jaginder?