Mid-West Collieries Co. v. McEwen

which the equitable doctrines of notice and constructive notice had given rise.

Vf

Mahn As observed in the Lanston Monotype Machine Co. Case (1) in three provinces, to which should now be added -o the province of Alberta, the law appears settled in the sense that mere knowledge of a prior unregistered right does not deprive a purchaser of the protection of the statute where an adequate consideration has been paid for the goods, and I would be extremely reluctant to overrule the long standing decisions by which the statutes have been so construed. It is more important that the policy of the law should be carried out, than that a negligent lien owner should be saved from the consequences of his own negligence. I may perhaps add that if I have misconceived the policy of the registration law, the last word rests with the legislature which can place its meaning beyond the possibility of further question.

MID-WEST COLLIERIES, LIMITED

T. M. McEWEN the Supreme Court of Alberta (1), affirming the judgment of the trial judge and maintaining the respondent's action for wrongful dismissal.

The material facts of the case are fully stated in the judgments now reported.

J.-This action was brought to recover a balance of salary and expenses due to the respondent by the appellant company arising out of a contract for services, or, in the alternative, damages for wrongful dismissal. There was added a claim of $400 and interest for money loaned by the respondent on the 31st October, 1921. Mr. Justice Ives, of the Supreme Court of Alberta, gave judgment in favour of the respondent for the sum of $7,793.55.

In this sum were included the capital and interest of the money loaned, the salary earned by the respondent and an agreed commission of 10 cents per ton for every ton of coal sold by the appellant up to the date of dismissal, moneys paid by the respondent as travelling expenses or freight charges and spent by him in the course of his employment, and finally damages equivalent to the salary and commission to which, but for his dismissal, the respondent would have been entitled under his contract, which was held to have been wrongfully terminated by the company.

S.C.R.

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed this judgment.

Of the several reasons advanced by the appellant com- Co. V.

pany as a justification for dismissing the respondent, all McEww.

of which were held bad by the judgment appealed from, Rinfret J. one only was seriously pressed before this court and need now be considered. It was alleged that the respondent, without authority of any of the shareholders or directors, mortgaged and charged the entire assets of the company to the Bank of Montreal, at Drumheller.

This chattel mortgage was given to the bank with whom the company carried on its banking business. There is no room for doubt that, at the time when the respondent was appointed, the financial position of the company was somewhat desperate. This appears to be manifest by the minutes of meetings of the directors and of the shareholders held on 7th March, 1922.

The following extracts from the evidence accurately represent the situation. O'Connor, the secretary-treasurer, is speaking and he says:

The mine could not possibly open; we were in that position where we could not possibly open. We could not get funds unless we were put in some position by somebody that would immediately * *

* Q. Command confidence?

A. Yes, or put us in a position where we could get money to open the mine.

And a little further:

We could not raise five cents and we were being threatened. The directors were on a bond with the Bank of Montreal and the Merchants Bank and they were threatening certain action.

McEwen explains why he came to give the chattel mortgage:

The pressure by Mr. Prest (the bank manager) became so great that when we were getting cheques from Bowman-Thayer on Saturday mornings, on pay day, and when we would take that cheque in the morning Mr. Jones (accountant) and I had got to the point where it was questionable whether Mr. Prest was going to place that to our credit or apply it to a payment of the debt. With this hanging over me, with the possibility of having to close our mine, I felt that it was the part of wisdom and good judgment to protect the company by giving a mortgage and particularly in view of having the information after having conferred with the secretary of our company and he having conferred with * * * Q. No, no you don't know whether he did or not. But you did have the benefit of the advice of the secretary-treasurer of the company. A. Yes.

Q. Who incidentally is a barrister and solicitor?

A. Yes.

The fact that the respondent consulted the secretarytreasurer is confirmed by the latter, who also states that he advised him that he had the right to give the mortgage. The evidence has failed to show that what the respondent did was detrimental to the company's interest, and, moreover, is clear that it was done only under pressure of necessity.

While, however, affording a good answer to a complaint that the respondent acted improvidently and cohtrary to the company's welfare, necessity alone might not be found a sufficient excuse, if the respondent in fact exceeded his authority. In this case, the rights of third parties are not in issue; the question concerns a mere matter of internal management.

What is to be determined is whether the directors in fact purported to clothe the respondent with the authority which he exercised; for the company cannot be heard to assert as a ground for dismissal or to brand as misconduct the making use of the very powers which its directors professed to vest in its officer; nor can it urge here the illegality of their acts, as.a ground of relief from the damages consequent upon such dismissal.

Now there was no formal resolution defining the extent of the powers of the respondent. It was moved at a directors' meeting then "that James C. Nostrant be manager"

and, this motion being withdrawn, it was moved and carried " that T. M. McEwen be appointed managing director."

Leaving aside for the moment the true meaning of the resolution, which will have to be considered later, the mere appointment of a manager by directors

(Palmer's Company Law, 12th ed., pp. 45 and 272); while the authority of a managing director may be implied from the power to delegate vested in the body by which he was appointed (Buckley on the Companies' Act, 10th ed. p. 656).-By the 68th article of Table A of The Companies Ordinance (18 Ord. of N.W.T., c. 20), which was embodied in the appellant's articles of association, the directors could delegate any of their powers to " committees consisting of such member or members of their body " as they thought fit.

It would appear that by appointing McEwen as they did, the directors intended thereby to delegate their powers to him under this article, subject of course to such direction and control as it was their duty to exercise (Montreal Public Service Co. v. Champagne (1).

But, on this point, Rinfret J. the record affords much more conclusive evidence of the intention of the meeting. We may look (Lindley on Companies, 6th ed. p. 433) at the answer given on the examination for discovery by James K. Vallance,

Now, generally speaking, unless otherwise provided by the Act under which the company was incorporated, by the articles of association or by the by-laws and regulations, the directors possess authority to exercise all the powers of the company (Hovey v. Whiting (2); and Art. 55 of Table A says so in explicit terms. Strong J., later Chief Justice, delivering the judgment of this court il Bickford v. Grand Junction Railway Co. (3), said at p. 730:

and he cites abundant authority in support of his proposition.

This power is not limited to the object of securing a loan, in which case " the sanction of a resolution of the company must be previously given in general meeting" (Companies' Ordinance, c. 20, Ords. of N.W.T. 1901, s. 98); but it may be exercised for other purposes, such as securing a debt which is an outstanding valid liability of the company, and for that the confirmatory vote of the shareholders is not required. Barthels v. Winnipeg Cigar Company (4).

In the case of The Corporation of the Town of St. Jr6me v. The Commercial Rubber Company Limited (5), the town had voted a bonus to the company and granted it exemption from taxation on condition that the company establish a factory in the municipality and operate the same for ten years without intermittence. The company gave a hypothee on its real estate as security for the fulfilment of its obligations. The town brought action to recover the bonus paid, alleging breach of the conditions, and prayed for the enforcement of the hypothec. The plea was that the deed of hypothee was illegal, null and void because the directors of the company had no power to authorize its president or any other officer to hypothecate the immovable properties without the formality of a by-law passed in due form and previously submitted to the shareholders of the company and approved by them.

The Privy Council held that the directors of a joint stock company incorporated under the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1888, c. 119, had the power under the "general powers" clause, s. 35 of the Act, to accept a conditional bonus and to hypothee the immovable property of the company to the municipality, without the approval of the shareholders.

There is no substantial difference between Art. 55 of

Table A of the Companies' Ordinance and section 35 of

The Companies Act of 1888, under which the case of Town of St. Jrome v. Commercial Rubber (1) was decided by the Judicial Committee. And the cases are made more similar by the circumstances that the federal Act of 1888

.(s. 37), like the Companies' Ordinance (s. 98), also contained provisions requiring the approval of the shareholders for authority to borrow money with incidental authority to hypothecate or pledge the real or personal property of the company as security therefor.

It follows that the directors could have executed the chattel mortgage here in question without the sanction of the shareholders. After the board had vested the respondent with full authority and control, the least that can be said is that the company cannot urge as a valid ground of dismissal the fact that he has executed this chattel mortgage securing a past due indebtedness to the bank.

But the appellant further says that the articles of association contain no provision enabling the directors to appoint a managing director.

It is not quite clear, from the three successive resolutions of the 7th of March, to which reference has already been made, whether the directors really intended to make McEwen a managing director or whether he is so styled in the minutes merely because he happened to be a manager chosen from amongst the directors.

Although a director, McEwen could, under clause 53 of Rinfret J. the articles of association,

We see however no reason to disagree from the view taken by the learned trial judge that, as the directors could, under art. 68 of Table A, delegate any of their powers to committees consisting of such member or members of their body as they thought fit, " a committee of one so named is tantamount to naming one as managing director,"especially when the Companies Ordinance (s. 94) contemplates the existence of a managing director; and it is common ground that there were managing directors in the company during the previous year, with the acquiescence of the shareholders (Phosphate of Lime Company v. Green (1); Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company v. Riche ).

It might perhaps be said that clause 51

(Fullerton v. Crawford (3) ).

It might also be argued, and with great force, that the true purpose and effect of the directors' resolution was to appoint the respondent general manager at the remuneration fixed, which it was within their power to do, and to delegate to him, qua director, their powers, which they were also enabled to do under Art. 68 of Table A. Under the circumstances, the name " managing director " may well have been used as a convenient and comprehensive description of the respondent's position as general manager exeraS, cising the powers of the directorate, qua delegated director, and the remuneration voted may not have required the sanction prescribed by clause 51 of the articles of association.

But the appellant having failed to raise any such point either in its statement of defence or in its notice of appeal, it should not be permitted to urge it for the first time before this court. If such an objection had been taken at the trial it would have been open to the respondent to show several reasons why it was not available to the appellant company. It is significant that neither in the special notice calling the shareholders together in extraordinary general meeting for the purpose of removing the respondent from office, nor in the letter notifying him of his dismissal as " manager " (sic) was this matter mentioned.

The appellant appears to have treated the respondent throughout as if entitled to be paid; and, under all the circumstances of the case, it was necessary that a defence of that kind be clearly raised in the pleadings, so that the plaintiff should be squarely faced with the difficulty and given full opportunity of meeting it.

This ground of defence is therefore not open now to the appellant company and, as it has failed to make good its other grounds of appeal, our conclusion is in agreement with that reached by the courts below.

J.-Having given all the consideration possible to the argument of counsel as well as factum for appellant I reached the conclusion that even if the respondent exceeded his actual powers in giving the chattel mortgage complained of to the bank to secure its arrears due and that under a pressing urgency, to save the appellant from possible disaster, and being advised by a member of the bar who happened to be secretary-treasurer of the company appellant there was no justification for the dismissal. There may have been an error of judgment but no such misconduct as entitled, on the facts presented herein, the summary dismissal of respondent.

I have never forgotten the fact that it was a general manager the directors had, by formal resolution, decided to ap-