precise name of garnishee for a notice of garnishment

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=cina+v+ultratech&language=en&searchTitle=Ontario&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/2001/2001canlii28011/2001canlii28011.html



"...1] Endorsement of KENT J.:—The judgment creditor served a Notice of Garnishment upon the Garnishee, describing it as TD Canada Trust. The named Garnishee responded, not by completing a garnishee statement, but by advising the judgment creditor that:


TD Canada Trust is not a legal entity and accordingly the debtor has no account with TD Canada Trust; and there is no debt owing to the debtor by TD Canada Trust. A proper notice should be served naming the legal entity by which the debt is actually payable.


[2] TD Canada Trust is the name by which five deposit-taking corporations carry on their retail banking operation. The name is, apparently, not a corporate entity but its use would be condoned by s. 42(3) of the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46, which provides that:


42(3) …a bank may carry on business under or identify itself by a name other than its corporate name.


The five corporations carrying on retail banking business under the name TD Canada Trust are:


(a) The Toronto-Dominion Bank;
(b) TD Mortgage Corporation;
(c) TD Pacific Mortgage Pacific Corporation
(d) The Canada Trust Company; and
(e) Canada Trustco Mortgage Company.


[3] Counsel for The Toronto-Dominion Bank appeared on the motion and submitted that the correct names of the five corporations were available to the public on a web site; that an examination of the judgment debtor would have enabled the judgment creditor to learn which of the five corporation(s) held deposit(s) of the judgment debtor and that any notice not naming the specific corporate entity by which a debt was actually payable to the judgment debtor was a nullity.


[4] This is neither a nullity nor a misnomer situation. Service was effected upon a Garnishee naming the Garnishee with the name by which five corporations chose to do business together. Service as effected constituted service on all five corporations. All five should have properly responded in the manner prescribed in the Notice of Garnishment.


[5] An order will go pursuant to rule 60.08(17), Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, requiring the five named corporations jointly and severally to pay to the Sheriff the sum of $31,101.93, or such lesser sum(s) as may have been owed by any or all of them to the judgment debtor as of the date and time of service of the notice upon TD Canada Trust, namely 21 September, 2001 at 2:10 p.m. Order accordingly.


[6] The moving party should have his costs of this motion as against The Toronto-Dominion Bank which are fixed at $1,500 and ordered to be paid forthwith..."



___________________________



approved and commented on approvingly in:



1.
Metera v. Financial Planning Group, 2002 ABQB 1051 (CanLII) — 2002-12-02
Alberta — Court of Queen's Bench
subsidiaries — ex juris — corporations — websites — dealer
cited by 3 cases
2.
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 v. S & S Glass and Aluminium (1993) Ltd., 2004 CanLII 12611 (ON C.A.) — 2004-03-30
Ontario — Court of Appeal for Ontario
notice of garnishment — debtor — subrule — motions — garnishee
3.
R. v. TD Bank Financial Group, a Body Corporate, 2008 ABPC 95 (CanLII) — 2008-04-01
Alberta — Provincial Court
nullity — offence — name — six month limitation period — entity



_________________________________