Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada

Last updated
Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: December 10, 2010
Judgment: July 15, 2011
Full case nameCanada Trustco Mortgage Company v. Her Majesty The Queen
Citations 2011 SCC 36, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 635
Docket No. 33422
Prior history Judgment for the Crown in the Federal Court of Appeal, affirming a decision of the Tax Court of Canada.
RulingAppeal allowed.
Holding
  1. The entirety of a cheque, including any instructions on the front and back, must be considered when determining whom the bank has a liability with in paying the money.
  2. After a cheque has been delivered to a bank for deposit, the person providing the cheque no longer has an entitlement to it, and is not part of the contractual relationship between the bank and the bank account holder.
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell
Reasons given
MajorityDeschamps J., joined by Binnie, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ.
DissentMcLachlin C.J., joined by Fish and Abella JJ.
LeBel and Charron JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada, is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the intersection of the Income Tax Act [1] and the Bills of Exchange Act [2] and the ability to seize funds that have been deposited by a debtor into an account held at a financial institution in Canada.

Contents

The facts

McLeod, a practising member of the Law Society of British Columbia, maintained a trust account with Canada Trustco for the purposes of his law practice. In addition, he and another lawyer held a joint account at the same branch. Each of the accounts was governed by an agreement. McLeod owed tax to the federal government. The Minister became aware that cheques payable to McLeod were being drawn on the trust account and deposited in the joint account. Each of the cheques during the period in question was drawn on the trust account, was payable to McLeod and was delivered to Trustco with an instruction to deposit the funds in the joint account. This instruction was given by writing "Dep to" and the account number on the back of the cheque.

As the Minister did not have the ability to seize funds from either the trust account or the joint account (because the tax debt was solely in McLeod's name), he therefore focused on the cheques that had been issued, and issued three requirements to pay to Trustco. According to these requirements, Trustco was to pay to the Receiver General moneys otherwise payable to McLeod. In response to the requirements to pay, Trustco disputed its liability on the ground that it was "not indebted to the [taxpayer] alone". The Minister assessed Trustco for the amounts of the cheques for failing to comply with the three requirements to pay. Trustco filed notices of objection. After they were rejected, it appealed to the Tax Court of Canada.

The courts below

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the Bank's appeal. Little J. held that the proceeds of the cheques were "payable" to McLeod because the debtor-creditor relationship between Trustco and Mr. McLeod required the former to repay the funds deposited in the trust account to the account holder on demand. In his view, Trustco's liability arose when Mr. McLeod "presented the bank with the cheques". This led Little J. to conclude that he did not need to examine the fact that the moneys had actually been transferred from the trust account to the joint account. Therefore, the Minister's requirement to pay had effect.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that no "palpable or overriding error" had been made and unanimously upheld Little J.'s decision.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

On a 4-3 majority, the appeal was allowed and the assessments vacated.

At the hearing, Trustco argued that the trial judge failed to differentiate between a demand for repayment of funds deposited in an account and the delivery of a cheque for deposit. In its view, it was liable only — as drawee — to pay funds out of the trust account upon proper presentment for payment by the holder of the cheque. At no point was it liable to make a payment to McLeod, the tax debtor. For its part, Canada contended that there was no distinction between presentment of a cheque to the drawee for the payment of cash to McLeod and presentment of a cheque for deposit to the joint account. Its position is that when McLeod delivered the cheques to Trustco and instructed it to pay the amounts into the joint account, he acted as payee, creditor, drawer, and depositor, but that his role as depositor was irrelevant.

The majority judgment

The Bank was at no point liable to pay M the proceeds of the cheques. The fact that a person is designated as payee on the face of a cheque does not on its own mean that a bank is liable to make a payment to the person. A drawee is answerable to the drawer. The question is to whom the drawee may make the payment. What is on the back of the cheque — the instructions or the endorsement — is crucial to this question. In this case, the instructions were to deposit the cheques into the joint account. The Bank's liability to pay monies to M personally cannot be confused with its liability to pay monies to the holders of the joint account. There were no instructions that made the monies payable to M.

There was nothing in the contractual relationships, the Bills of Exchange Act or the common law that would indicate otherwise. In crediting the joint account, sending the cheques to a third party for clearing, and receiving the proceeds, the Bank was acting on the basis of its contractual relationship with the holders of the joint account and not on behalf of M personally. When the Bank debited the trust account the next day, it was not making a payment to M or to an agent acting for him alone. The Bank owed no money to M, as it was acting as the collecting bank for its customers, the holders of the joint account. It did not collect the proceeds of the cheques as agent for the payee, M.

The dissent

The minority disagreed with respect to two narrow points, declaring (based on the Court's opinion in B.M.P. Global Distribution Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia ): [3]

Subsection 165(3) of the BEA does not establish that the bank becomes a holder of the cheque ― its limited objective is achieved by granting the collecting bank all the rights and powers of a holder in due course, and does not require the bank to be actually designated a holder in due course. Once the Bank received M's cheques to himself, its liability to its customer was triggered. The Bank was therefore contractually bound to honour its customer's demand to pay him. As such, all of the requirements of s. 224(1) of the ITA were met, and the requirement to pay attached to the money in transit between M's accounts.

Aftermath

The ruling conflicts with established principles governing banking and bills of exchange law in Canada. The minority also noted that the majority's view of a joint account "may negatively impact other areas of the law", which may require amendment of the relevant statutes. [4]

Related Research Articles

A banking license is a legal prerequisite for a financial institution that wants to carry on a banking business. Under the laws of most jurisdictions, a business is not permitted to carry words like a bank, insurance, national in their name, unless it holds a corresponding license. Depending to their banking regulations, jurisdictions may offer different types of banking licenses, such as

In banking, a direct deposit is a deposit of money by a payer directly into a payee's bank account. Direct deposits are most commonly made by businesses in the payment of salaries and wages and for the payment of suppliers' accounts, but the facility can be used for payments for any purpose, such as payment of bills, taxes, and other government charges. Direct deposits are most commonly made by means of electronic funds transfers effected using online, mobile, and telephone banking systems but can also be affected by the physical deposit of money into the payee's bank account.

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, or giro transfer, is a payment transfer from one bank account to another bank account and initiated by the payer, not the payee. The debit card has a similar model. Giros are primarily a European phenomenon; although electronic payment systems such as the Automated Clearing House exist in the United States and Canada, 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.

Travelers cheque

A traveler's cheque is a medium of exchange that can be used in place of hard currency. They can be denominated in one of a number of major world currencies and are preprinted, fixed-amount cheques designed to allow the person signing it to make an unconditional payment to someone else as a result of having paid the issuer for that privilege.

Negotiable instrument document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money, either on demand, or at a set time

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 can have different meanings, depending on what law is being applied and in which country and context it is used.

Cheque 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 their money is held. The drawer writes the 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 that person or company the amount of money stated.

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 withholding tax, or a retention tax, is an income tax to be paid to the government by the payer of the income rather than by the recipient of the income. The tax is thus withheld or deducted from the income due to the recipient. In most jurisdictions, withholding tax applies to employment income. Many jurisdictions also require withholding tax on payments of interest or dividends. In most jurisdictions, there are additional withholding tax obligations if the recipient of the income is resident in a different jurisdiction, and in those circumstances withholding tax sometimes applies to royalties, rent or even the sale of real estate. Governments use withholding tax as a means to combat tax evasion, and sometimes impose additional withholding tax requirements if the recipient has been delinquent in filing tax returns, or in industries where tax evasion is perceived to be common.

A payment is the trade of value from one party to another for goods, or services, or to fulfill a legal obligation.

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.

In banking, a post-dated cheque is a cheque written by the drawer (payer) for a date in the future.

Demand draft

A demand draft is a negotiable instrument similar to a bill of exchange. A bank issues a demand draft to a client (drawer), directing another bank (drawee) or one of its own branches to pay a certain sum to the specified party (payee).

Bankers acceptance

A banker's acceptance is an instrument representing a promised future payment by a bank. The payment is accepted and guaranteed by the bank as a time draft to be drawn on a deposit. The draft specifies the amount of funds, the date of the payment, and the entity to which the payment is owed. After acceptance, the draft becomes an unconditional liability of the bank. Banker's acceptances are distinguished from ordinary time drafts in that ownership is transferable prior to maturity, allowing them to be traded in the secondary market.

Crossing of cheques

A crossed cheque is a cheque that has been marked specifying an instruction on the way it is to be redeemed. A common instruction is for the cheque to be deposited directly to an account with a bank and not to be immediately cashed by the holder over the bank counter. The format and wording varies between countries, but generally, two parallel lines may be placed either vertically across the cheque or on the top left hand corner of the cheque. By using crossed cheques, cheque writers can effectively protect the instrument from being stolen or cashed by unauthorized persons.

Cheque truncation check scanning to obviate paper delivery to the checks bank

Cheque truncation is a cheque clearance system that involves the digitalisation of a physical paper cheque into a substitute electronic form for transmission to the paying bank. The process of cheque clearance, involving data matching and verification, is done using digital images instead of paper copies.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an act in India dating from the British colonial rule, that is still in force largely unchanged.

A deposit account is a savings account, current account or any other type of bank account that allows money to be deposited and withdrawn by the account holder. These transactions are recorded on the bank's books, and the resulting balance is recorded as a liability for the bank and represents the amount owed by the bank to the customer. Some banks may charge a fee for this service, while others may pay the customer interest on the funds deposited.

<i>BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia</i>

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.

<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.

References

  1. Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.))
  2. Bills of Exchange Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4)
  3. B.M.P. Global Distribution Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 504 , 2009 SCC 15
  4. Marc Lemieux. "The Supreme Court of Canada Finds a Limit to the Scope of the Requirement to Pay under Section 224 ITA" (PDF). Fraser Milner Casgrain . Retrieved 2012-01-30.