BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia

Last updated
BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: May 15, 2008
Judgment: April 2, 2009
Full case nameB.M.P. Global Distribution Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia doing business as the Scotiabank and the said Scotiabank;
Bank of Nova Scotia doing business as the Scotiabank and the said Scotiabank v. B.M.P. Global Distribution Inc., 636651 B.C. Ltd., Audie Hashka and Paul Backman
Citations 2009 SCC 15; [2009] 1 SCR 504; 304 DLR (4th) 292; [2009] 8 WWR 428; 58 BLR (4th) 1; 94 BCLR (4th) 1
Docket No. 31930
Prior history Judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, allowing an appeal and dismissing a cross‑appeal from a decision of Supreme Court of British Columbia.
RulingAppeal dismissed and cross‑appeal allowed.
Holding
If a person pays another due to a mistake of fact that led to the payment, the payor is entitled to recover the money, unless (1) the payor intends that the payee shall have the money at all events or is deemed in law so to intend, (2) the payment is made for good consideration, or (3) the payee has changed his position in good faith or is deemed in law to have done so.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byDeschamps J.
Bastarache, Fish, Abella, and Charron JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Bills of Exchange Act [1]

BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 504 , 2009 SCC 15, is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the law of restitution and tracing, in this case dealing with a bank's right to recover funds paid by mistake on the deposit of a fraudulent cheque.

Contents

The facts

BMP, a company that distributed non-stick bakeware, entered into an agreement with a third party for selling the rights to distribute such goods in the United States. Subsequently, it received an unendorsed cheque of $904,563 payable to BMP. The cheque was drawn on the account of a company at the Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"). Neither this company nor the name of the sender of the envelope containing the cheque was known to BMP, or was apparently linked to the business purchasing the right to distribute the bakeware. BMP banked with the Bank of Nova Scotia ("BNS"), and arranged to deposit the cheque into its account there.

After the cheque had cleared and the funds were subsequently released to BMP, several transfers took place over the following ten days to other accounts at BNS held by BMP's principals and a related company. RBC subsequently notified BNS that the cheque for $904,563 was counterfeit, as the drawer's signatures were forged and asked for BNS's assistance. BNS interrupted all transactions in BMP's account and in all related accounts and asked BMP for assistance in recovering the proceeds of the forged cheque. BMP insisted on retaining the amount it still held.

BNS then restrained the funds in accounts under its control that it linked to the forged cheque. RBC and BNS entered into an agreement by which BNS was, at RBC's request, to transfer the restrained funds to RBC and RBC was to indemnify BNS for any losses related to the restraint and transfer. BNS transferred $777,336 to RBC.

The courts below

In the original case before the British Columbia Supreme Court, the trial judge ordered BNS to pay $777,336 in total pecuniary damages and also awarded damages for wrongful disclosure of information and defamation. In his view, BNS had violated the service agreement as well as the law applicable to banker/customer relations by charging back amounts credited to BMP's and the related accounts.

On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, BNS's appeal was allowed against BMP by reducing the latter's damages to $101. As to the funds traced in the related accounts, the court found that BMP's transfers were proper and that the cheques were actual bills of exchange and dismissed the appeals against BMP's related parties.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

In a unanimous judgment, BMP's appeal was dismissed, and BNS' cross-appeal was allowed.

The right to recover funds

As noted in Barclays Bank v. Simms, [2] if a person pays money to another under a mistake of fact which causes him to make the payment, he or she is prima facie entitled to recover it. The person's claim may fail, however, if:

  1. the payor intends that the payee shall have the money at all events or is deemed in law so to intend (the principle of "finality of payment");
  2. the payment is made for good consideration; or
  3. the payee has changed his position in good faith or is deemed in law to have done so.

In that regard, BMP had raised the following points in its defence:

Here, RBC had a right to recover the money paid to BMP. RBC's payment was made on the basis of a forged cheque and the defences are not available to BMP in the circumstances of this case.

The principles of tracing

BNS had the right to claim the amount in BMP's account and to trace funds in the related accounts. There is no issue of identification of the money in BMP's account.

It is possible at common law to trace funds into bank accounts if it is possible to identify the funds. When the chain is broken by one of the intervening parties paying from its own funds, identification of the claimant's funds is no longer possible. However, the fact that a cheque passes through a clearing system, or that it may have been certified, does not break the chain, as the funds have not lost their identity. Tracing is impossible only when the means of ascertainment fail. As noted by the Court,

It makes no difference in reason or law into what other form, different from the original, the change may have been made, whether it be into that of promissory notes for the security of the money which was produced by the sale of the goods of the principal... or into other merchandize... for the product of or substitute for the original thing still follows the nature of the thing itself, as long as it can be ascertained to be such, and the right only ceases when the means of ascertainment fail, which is the case when the subject is turned into money, and mixed and confounded in a general mass of the same description. The difficulty which arises in such a case is a difficulty of fact and not of law, and the dictum that money has no ear‑mark must be understood in the same way; i.e. as predicated only of an undivided and undistinguishable mass of current money.

Aftermath

The decision has given Canadian financial institutions some protection in the event of the deposit of counterfeit cheques. The Court, however, in Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada , [3] decided not to extend its principles to other types of fraudulent payments, although the dissenting opinion in that case endorsed the approach.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dishonoured cheque</span> Cheque that a bank declines to pay

Dishonoured cheques are cheques that a bank on which is drawn declines to pay (“honour”). There are a number of reasons why a bank would refuse to honour a cheque, with non-sufficient funds (NSF) being the most common one, indicating that there are insufficient cleared funds in the account on which the cheque was drawn. An NSF check may be referred to as a bad check, dishonored check, bounced check, cold check, rubber check, returned item, or hot check. Lost or bounced checks result in late payments and affect the relationship with customers. In England and Wales and Australia, such cheques are typically returned endorsed "Refer to drawer", an instruction to contact the person issuing the cheque for an explanation as to why it was not paid. If there are funds in an account, but insufficient cleared funds, the cheque is normally endorsed “Present again”, by which time the funds should have cleared.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Money order</span> Payment order for a prepaid amount of money

A money order is a directive to pay a pre-specified amount of money from prepaid funds, making it a more trusted method of payment than a cheque.

Cheque clearing or bank clearance is the process of moving cash from the bank on which a cheque is drawn to the bank in which it was deposited, usually accompanied by the movement of the cheque to the paying bank, either in the traditional physical paper form or digitally under a cheque truncation system. This process is called the clearing cycle and normally results in a credit to the account at the bank of deposit, and an equivalent debit to the account at the bank on which it was drawn, with a corresponding adjustment of accounts of the banks themselves. If there are not enough funds in the account when the cheque arrived at the issuing bank, the cheque would be returned as a dishonoured cheque marked as non-sufficient funds.

Bank fraud is the use of potentially illegal means to obtain money, assets, or other property owned or held by a financial institution, or to obtain money from depositors by fraudulently posing as a bank or other financial institution. In many instances, bank fraud is a criminal offence. While the specific elements of particular banking fraud laws vary depending on jurisdictions, the term bank fraud applies to actions that employ a scheme or artifice, as opposed to bank robbery or theft. For this reason, bank fraud is sometimes considered a white-collar crime.

A giro transfer, often shortened to giro, is a payment transfer from one current bank account to another bank account and initiated by the payer, not the payee. The debit card has a similar model. Giros are primarily used in Europe; although electronic payment systems exist in the United States, it is not possible to perform third-party transfers with them. In the European Union, there is the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), which allows electronic giro or debit card payments in euros to be executed to any euro bank account in the area.

Cheque fraud, or check fraud, refers to a category of criminal acts that involve making the unlawful use of cheques in order to illegally acquire or borrow funds that do not exist within the account balance or account-holder's legal ownership. Most methods involve taking advantage of the float to draw out these funds. Specific kinds of cheque fraud include cheque kiting, where funds are deposited before the end of the float period to cover the fraud, and paper hanging, where the float offers the opportunity to write fraudulent cheques but the account is never replenished.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negotiable instrument</span> Contract document exchangeable for money

A negotiable instrument is a document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money, either on demand, or at a set time, whose payer is usually named on the document. More specifically, it is a document contemplated by or consisting of a contract, which promises the payment of money without condition, which may be paid either on demand or at a future date. The term has different meanings depending on the use of the term as it is used in the application of different laws, and depending in which country and context it is used. The word "negotiable" refers to transferable and "instrument" refers to a document giving legal effect by the virtue of the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cheque</span> Method of payment

A cheque, or check, is a document that orders a bank to pay a specific amount of money from a person's account to the person in whose name the cheque has been issued. The person writing the cheque, known as the drawer, has a transaction banking account where the money is held. The drawer writes various details including the monetary amount, date, and a payee on the cheque, and signs it, ordering their bank, known as the drawee, to pay the amount of money stated to the payee.

A cashier's check is a check guaranteed by a bank, drawn on the bank's own funds and signed by a cashier. Cashier's checks are treated as guaranteed funds because the bank, rather than the purchaser, is responsible for paying the amount. They are commonly required for real estate and brokerage transactions.

A direct debit or direct withdrawal is a financial transaction in which one organisation withdraws funds from a payer's bank account. Formally, the organisation that calls for the funds instructs their bank to collect an amount directly from another's bank account designated by the payer and pay those funds into a bank account designated by the payee. Before the payer's banker will allow the transaction to take place, the payer must have advised the bank that they have authorized the payee to directly draw the funds. It is also called pre-authorized debit (PAD) or pre-authorized payment (PAP). After the authorities are set up, the direct debit transactions are usually processed electronically.

A certified check is a form of check for which the bank verifies that sufficient funds exist in the account to cover the check, and so certifies, at the time the check is written. Those funds are then set aside in the bank's internal account until the check is cashed or returned by the payee. Thus, a certified check cannot be stopped or bounce, and, in this manner, its liquidity is similar to cash barring bank failure or an illegal act.

A payment is the voluntary tender of money or its equivalent or of things of value by one party to another in exchange for goods or services provided by them, or to fulfill a legal obligation/philanthropy desire. The party making the payment is commonly called the payer, while the payee is the party receiving the payment.

A standing order is an instruction a bank account holder gives to their bank to pay a set amount at regular intervals to another's account. The instruction is sometimes known as a banker's order.

A banker's draft is a cheque provided to a customer of a bank or acquired from a bank for remittance purposes, that is drawn by the bank, and drawn on another bank or payable through or at a bank.

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada, is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the intersection of the Income Tax Act and the Bills of Exchange Act and the ability to seize funds that have been deposited by a debtor into an account held at a financial institution in Canada.

<i>Coutts & Co v Stock</i>

Coutts & Co v Stock[1999] EWHC 191 (Ch), [2000] 1 WLR 906 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.

<i>Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd</i>

Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677, [1979] 3 All ER 522 was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the recovery of a payment mistakenly made by a bank after the customer had countermanded the cheque.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd[1998] EWCA Civ 1853 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to the recovery of a payment made by a bank on the mistaken belief that the customer had sufficient cleared funds in the account.

<i>Smith v Lloyds TSB Group plc</i>

Smith v Lloyds TSB Group plc [2001] QB 541 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to the liability of a bank where it makes payment upon a fraudulently altered cheque. The case was a co-joined appeal from one High Court action and a County Court action.

<i>National Westminster Bank v Barclays Bank International Ltd</i>

National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] 1 QB 654 is a decision of the High Court relating to the duty of care of a bank in relation to forged cheques with respect to persons other than their customer.

References

  1. Bills of Exchange Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4)
  2. Barclays Bank Ltd. v. W. J. Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd., [1979] 3 All E.R. 522
  3. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 635 , 2011 SCC 36