Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. Canada, 98 DTC 6505, [1998] 2 SCR 298, [1998] 4 CTC 119 -- summary under Illegality

There was no dispute that the participation by the taxpayer, as a partner, in a partnership for a four-day period resulted in a breach by its parent (a bank) of s. 174(2)(i) of the Bank Act, which prohibited the direct or indirect investment or participation in a partnership by a bank. The majority found that the unlawfulness of the investment by the bank and the taxpayer did not affect the legality of the partnership's business or of the taxpayer's participation in the partnership. Furthermore, considerations of public policy required that breaches of the Bank Act not lead to the invalidation of contracts and other transactions because "to unravel commercial transactions on the basis that a corporate actor breached a statute is to introduce uncertainty into the affairs of individuals and businesses" (p. 6509) and, furthermore, s. 20(1) of the Bank Act (which stated that no act of a bank was invalid by reason only that the act was contrary to the Act) supported the view that Parliament never intended breaches of the Bank Act to render bank transactions null and void.