Entreprises A.B. Rimouski Inc. v. Canada
T-2674-92
Denault J.
11/10/96
11 pp.
Action for damages for loss of contract, interference with reputation, loss of solvency-In 1989, plaintiff Les Entreprises A.B. Rimouski Inc. obtaining contract to demolish old Cap-Chat commercial dock before March 31, 1990-Because of disagreements between parties during performance of contract, defendant Public Works Canada informed company on May 15, 1990 considered in default in performance of contract and requested surety remedy defects and complete contract-On October 29, 1992, plaintiffs bringing action claiming balance of amount withheld by defendant, and damages-Pursuant to assignments of debts and rights of action, plaintiff Banville continuing proceedings in personal capacity and as assignee of A.B. company-Concerning personal claim, in so far as company different entity from himself, plaintiff Banville could not make claim for loss of contract-Other two heads of claim, interference with reputation and loss of solvency, also ambiguous-Banville's action brought on October 29, 1992 time barred by Civil Code, art. 2267-Plaintiff's personal claim dismissed-Claim as assignee of rights of Les Entreprises A.B. Rimouski Inc. also dismissed-Application of Financial Administration Act, ss. 66 to 69-Act provides Crown debt not assignable-Two categories of Crown debts exceptions to rule, may be assigned: amount due or becoming due under contract (s. 68(1)(a)) and debt of prescribed class (s. 68(1)(b))-Case at bar involves "contract"-Right of action chose in action-Distinction should not be made between claim under contract, chose in action-Under Act, s. 68(1)(a), only debt amount due or becoming due under contract assignable-Defendant's obligation not fixed and settled-Facts showing debt not amount due, becoming due-Not having established entitlement to exception set out in Act, s. 68(1)(a), assignee subject to rule of non-assignability-Debt claimed by A.B. company not assignable to plaintiff Banville-Plaintiff had to satisfy requirements for validity set out in Act, s. 68(2)(a), (c): had to prove assignment absolute and notice of assignment given to Crown as provided in s. 69-Failure to comply with these mandatory requirements of Act fatal-Debt not absolute, assignor having divested itself of only 75% portion of its rights, interests in debts or rights of action described in description clause-Action dismissed-Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 2267-Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11, ss. 66, 67, 68, 69.