Court Rules Banks Not Liable for Converting
Cheques to Non-Existing / Fictitious Payees
Teva Canada Limited v. Bank of Montréal, 2016 ONCA 94
On the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Teva Canada Limited v. Bank of
Montréal. The case arose out of a $5M fraud perpetrated by a former employee of
pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva Canada Ltd. ("Teva") against Teva and a number of
banks. The former employee requisitioned and obtained fraudulent cheques from Teva
made out to companies he registered with names similar to customers of Teva. The
cheques were negotiated by the defendant banks through accounts opened by the fraudster
in the name of the companies he registered.
Teva sued the banks for damages for conversion, a strict liability offence under the Bills of
Exchange Act ("BEA"), and brought a motion for summary judgment. The defendants TD
Canada Trust and The Bank of Nova Scotia brought cross-motions for summary judgment
and argued that various statutory defences were available to them under the BEA. In
particular, the banks argued that the cheques were made out to payees who were nonexistent and / or fictitious within the meaning of section 20(5) of the BEA. Under that section,
if a cheque is made out to a non-existent or fictitious payee, a bank is entitled to threat the
cheque as though it were payable to bearer.
Teva was successful on its summary judgment motion. The motion judge held that the
statutory defences relied on by the banks were not applicable in the circumstances. The
banks appealed as of right to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Justice Laskin, writing for himself and Justices Weiler and Kronk, allowed the banks'
appeals. The Court of Appeal held that the cheques in question fell within the statutory
defence found in section 20(5) of the BEA,, and that the motion judge erred in holding that
the defence was not available in the circumstances. As held by Justice Laskin, "The purpose
of s. 20(5) is to protect the bank from fraud on the drawer, committed by a third party,
including an insider in the drawer's organization. The section allocated the loss to the
drawer, who typically is better positioned to discover the fraud or insure against it." (para.
34)
A key question on the appeal was whether payees with names very similar or identical to
customers of Teva fit within the scope of non-existing and/or fictitious payees. The leading
case on conversion under the BEA is Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce ("Boma"), a 1996 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In Boma, Justice
Iacobucci modified the effect of s. 20(5) of the BEA, with the effect that "even if a payee is, in
fact, a creature of the fraudster's imagination, the payee may still not be non-existing if the
drawer had a plausible and honest, though mistaken, belief that the payee was a real
creditor of the drawer's business." (para. 41)
In present case, Teva argued that it had a plausible and honest belief that, in the
circumstances, the payees (whose names were similar to those of Teva customers) were
real creditors. The banks argued that this could not be the case, because the cheques were
mechanically processed without proper internal approvals, and therefore Teva could not
have intended to make the payments to real customers. The Court accepted the banks'
argument, allowed their appeals, dismissed Teva's action, and awarded costs of $30,000 to
each bank.
Justice Laskin is very careful to ensure that his reasons are consistent with the decision of
Justice Iacobucci in Boma, despite noting in footnotes that a number of Justice Iacobucci's
findings have subsequently been criticized. In particular, Justice Laskin interprets
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com
paragraphs in Boma which suggest on their face that Teva's intention to make the cheques
payable to valid payees should be presumed or implied in light of the entirety of Justice
Iacobucci's analysis, distinguishing the facts in Boma from the facts at bar.
The decision is helpful for the following reasons:

It affirms that non-existing and fictitious payees are distinct from each other,
and that whether a payee is non-existing is a question of fact, while whether a
payee is fictitious depends on the intention of the drawer.

It interprets Boma to stand for the proposition that that the drawer's intention to
pay to valid payees will only be presumed or implied where this is supported
by the facts in evidence.

It confirms that while the use of pre-printed cheques is commonplace,
companies must put in place and follow a policy for approving their issuance,
in order to rely on the BEA to hold banks accountable for losses in conversion.
AUTHOR
Heather Pessione
T 416.367.6589
HPessione@blg.com
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com
BLG OFFICES
Calgary
Montréal
Ottawa
Centennial Place, East Tower
1900, 520 - 3rd Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2P 0R3
1000 De La Gauchetière Street West
Suite 900
Montréal, Québec, Canada
H3B 5H4
World Exchange Plaza
100 Queen Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1P 1J9
T 403.232.9500
F 403.266.1395
T 514-954-2555
F 514-879-9015
T 613.237.5160
F 613.230.8842
Toronto
Vancouver
Scotia Plaza
40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5H 3Y4
1200 Waterfront Centre
200 Burrard Street
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V7X 1T2
T 416.367.6000
F 416.367.6749
T 604.687.5744
F 604.687.1415
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to be a complete statement of the law or
an opinion on any subject. Although we endeavour to ensure its accuracy, no one should act upon it without a
thorough examination of the law after the facts of a specific situation are considered. No part of this publication may
be reproduced without prior written permission of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG). This publication has been sent
to you courtesy of BLG. We respect your privacy, and wish to point out that our privacy policy relative to publications
may be found at http://www.blg.com/en/privacy. If you have received this in error, or if you do not wish to receive
further publications, you may ask to have your contact information removed from our mailing lists by phoning
1.877.BLG.LAW1 or by emailing unsubscribe@blg.com.
© 2015 Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership.
Calgary | Montréal | Ottawa | Toronto | Vancouver
Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents | Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership
blg.com