The following excerpt is from Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin, [1996] 3 SCR 415, 1996 CanLII 182 (SCC):
93 With respect, I do not agree with Carthy J.A. when he says that the words “notwithstanding the giving of time for payment” should be interpreted to refer only to forbearance by the bank to pursue remedies during the original term of the mortgage. This is a case where we should heed the warning of Lindley L.J. in Cornish v. Accident Insurance Co., supra, and not use the contra proferentem doctrine in any guise to create a doubt, or to magnify an ambiguity. Like Killeen J., I am of the view that the plain wording of the agreement in question raises no real difficulty. (ii)Under clause 34, did the appellant have to notify the guarantors of the renewal agreement?
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.