Canada: i Trade Finance Inc. v. Bank of Montreal

When a fraud is perpetrated in a lending transaction, the result is often that there are too few assets remaining to satisfy creditors, and those assets are subject to competing claims. Even more importantly, one of two innocent people will probably have to bear the loss caused by the fraud. If those competing claims are between creditors with security interests registered under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA"), the decision as to who has priority is generally straightforward, absent extraneous or unusual facts. However, when the claim of a secured creditor is pitted against a party with an equitable claim or proprietary right, the lines become much more blurred, and a secured creditor runs the risk of finding its claim subordinated to that of an unsecured creditor.

Not surprisingly, fraudulent transactions are especially susceptible to the competing claims of creditors with a legal right to assets and third parties with a security interest in those same assets. With fraud, assets are often transferred between debtors without a creditor's knowledge. Such was the case in the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in i Trade Finance Inc. v. Bank of Montreal.1 The trial judge found in favour of the claim in equity; the Court of Appeal found in favour of the claim under the PPSA; and the Supreme Court of Canada sided with the Court of Appeal, albeit for somewhat different reasons.

While the i Trade decision touches on several separate but related issues, including tracing, claims for unjust enrichment, mistake of fact and the nature of equitable interests, this article will focus primarily on the outcome as it relates to the rules that apply when attempting to resolve a claim between a creditor with a security interest under the PPSA and a creditor with an equitable proprietary interest.

The Facts in i Trade Finance Inc. v. Bank of Montreal

Between 2002 and 2003, i Trade Finance Inc. advanced money to Webworx Inc. on the strength of substantial contracts for computer services which did not actually exist. Certain of these funds were then advanced to the President of Webworx, Rohit Ablacksingh, through his salary and by way of corporate loans from Webworx. These ill-gotten gains were then used by Ablacksingh to purchase shares held in an investment account held jointly with his spouse, Cindy Ramsackal, at BMO Nesbitt Burns.

Ablacksingh and Ramsackal were also joint cardholders of a MasterCard account with Bank of Montreal ("BMO"), which initially had a credit limit of $10,000. Relying on a pledge of the shares in its favour, BMO significantly increased the credit limit of the MasterCard account.

When Webworx's fraudulent practices were discovered, it was ordered, with the consent of all parties, that the shares be liquidated and the proceeds held in trust pending further order of the court.

i Trade sued Webworx and Ablacksingh. On September 5, 2006, Webworx and Ablacksingh were ordered to pay damages. Belobaba J. declared that all assets purchased with the funds advanced by i Trade were held by each of the defendants in the civil proceedings as constructive trustee for the benefit of i Trade. Belobaba J. also declared that the proceeds of the shares were subject to a constructive trust and granted i Trade a tracing order, enabling it to follow the proceeds and seek a personal remedy against any party who might be liable. The Tracing Order, however, specifically excluded assets in the hands of any bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The primary question at issue in the i Trade Decision was whether BMO, who claimed a security interest under the PPSA, was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the shares and could therefore defeat the equitable claim of i Trade to the money. If so, BMO would be paid and could use the money to discharge the indebtedness owing under the MasterCard account. If not, i Trade would be able to trace the Disputed Funds into the hands of BMO and recover the proceeds.

While, as the Supreme Court noted, the issue appeared simple enough, it required consideration of a number of interrelated matters to determine what rules would apply to resolve the competing claims under the PPSA and in equity, including the nature of i Trade's interest in the money, the nature of BMO's interest in the money, whether Ablacksingh had rights in the shares sufficient to support BMO's claim to a security interest and the nature of these competing claims under the PPSA.2

The Decisions of the Lower Courts

In the initial proceedings before the Superior Court, Kiteley J. found in favour of i Trade. In her opinion, Ablacksingh did not have a right in the Shares that could be pledged to BMO to create a security interest because attachment under Subsection 11(2) of the PPSA had not occurred3: Ablacksingh "could not acquire an interest in the collateral that he knew was obtained through his fraud."4 Without the requisite rights in the collateral, BMO's security interest could never have attached and, accordingly, BMO's interest in the Shares was not enforceable against a third party such as i Trade, pursuant to the provisions of the PPSA. Kiteley J. also concluded that unjust enrichment had occurred and, in her view, i Trade's ability to assert a constructive trust over the money and trace it were remedies that flowed from that cause of action. Kiteley J. held that BMO was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, but, nevertheless, further held that BMO's claim failed because BMO had been given the security interest in the Shares by Ablacksingh and Ramsackal, rather than by Webworx, the actual borrower under the lending arrangement with i Trade.5

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, finding in favour of BMO.6 Blair J.A., writing for the court, held that BMO was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and was therefore entitled to the money. In Blair J.A.'s opinion, BMO was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, irrespective of whether it had a security interest under the PPSA, because it had obtained an enforceable interest through the pledge. When i Trade loaned funds to Webworx, it did so with the intention of transferring its ownership interest in those funds. It was this intent that created a voidable interest (discussed in more detail below) in favour of Webworx in the funds, which, citing previous Court of Appeal decisions, Blair J.A. saw as capable of forming the basis for a security interest.7 To him, it was immaterial that i Trade had lent the funds to Webworx and not to Ablacksingh personally, because i Trade had advanced the funds with an intention to pass title. Once Webworx had title to the funds, it was free to transfer them to Ablacksingh. As a result, Blair J. held that BMO had a better claim to these funds as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Deschamps J. wrote the unanimous judgment for the Supreme Court and agreed with the ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeal, but focused on the application of the PPSA. She first noted that, in Ontario, when a party claims an interest in personal property as payment for an obligation (as both i Trade and BMO were doing), a court must determine whether the PPSA applies to the interests claimed.

Contrary to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis of the issue required regard to Section 2 of the PPSA, which states that the statute applies to every transaction that in substance creates a security interest. A security interest is broadly defined as "an interest in personal property that secures payment or performance of an obligation." In this case, i Trade's claim to the money arose solely under the tracing order, on the basis that it was subject to a constructive trust or was subject to an equitable lien. Because i Trade's interest in the money arose only by order of a court and was not a "transaction," it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 2 and was not subject to the PPSA.8 With no interest under the PPSA, i Trade's interest could only arise as an "equitable proprietary interest."9

In contrast, BMO's interest in the money arose by virtue of the pledge agreement that pledged the shares held with Nesbitt Burns. The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances of the pledge to BMO and found that the transaction was, in substance, intended to create a security interest in the shares to secure payment of the increased credit limit under the MasterCard account.10 By operation of Section 2, the PPSA applied to BMO's security interest in the money. Pursuant to Section 11 of the PPSA, that interest could only be enforced against a third party such as i Trade if it had properly attached in accordance with Subsection 11(2) of the PPSA.

Similar to the decisions in the lower courts, the Supreme Court analyzed the steps necessary for attachment and found that the first two requirements (that the collateral secured be identified and that value be given) were easily met. The pledge agreement granted to BMO clearly identified the shares and the investment account and that BMO had given value in the form of an increased credit limit under the MasterCard account.

Whether the third requirement for attachment was met, however, required greater scrutiny, because Ablacksingh had acquired the Shares with funds that had been fraudulently obtained from i Trade. Given this, the Supreme Court had to examine whether, at the time the security interest was granted, Ablacksingh possessed sufficient rights in funds used to purchase the Shares to grant a security interest in favour of BMO.

In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court noted that fraud makes an agreement voidable, but not void. The difference may seem subtle, but, as noted in the numerous authorities cited by the Supreme Court, an agreement that is only voidable is not invalidated until it has been rescinded by the party on whom the fraud has been perpetrated.11 The innocent party may in fact elect to waive the fraud and enforce the contract. Citing the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,12 the Supreme Court affirmed the proposition that when an innocent party consensually advances funds to another under an agreement, the innocent party has conveyed the right to use those funds until the innocent party revokes its consent.13

As a result, when i Trade advanced funds to Webworx during 2002 and 2003, Webworx had i Trade's consent to use the funds. That consent remained until i Trade initiated legal proceedings against Webworx. However, prior to the commencement of legal proceedings, Webworx had advanced certain funds to Ablacksingh by way of paycheques and corporate loans. Given this, the Supreme Court found that Ablacksingh was able to acquire the same interest as Webworx in the funds, which were then used to purchase the Shares. Accordingly, Ablacksingh had rights in the Shares sufficient to support a security interest, and all of the requirements for the attachment of BMO's security interest under Subsection 11(2) of the PPSA had been met.

With a valid security interest, BMO had a legal interest in the Disputed Funds (as proceeds of the Shares). This was important because, as the Supreme Court stated, the tracing order did not extend to the interest of a "bona fide purchaser of a legal interest for value without notice of a pre-existing equitable interest."14 BMO was a "purchaser," which is defined under the PPSA to include a "pledge," and its security interest in the Disputed Funds was obtained pursuant to the PPSA. i Trade's equitable interest was therefore defeated by BMO's legal interest, regardless of the fact that i Trade's right arose prior to BMO's. BMO was held to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and was awarded the money.

Conclusion and Implications

The i Trade Decision is primarily focused on risk management. The underlying policy rationale, cited by the Supreme Court, is that i Trade, as the initial lender, could more readily determine the fraudulent activities of Webworx, and should accordingly bear the risk. As stated in Angela Swan's Canadian Contract Law: "[i]f the contract is held to be voidable only, the risk of loss remains with the [initial] owner, for the contract with the rogue will not be rescinded in this situation and, as a result, title will have passed through the rogue and any subsequent bona fide purchaser will not be liable in conversion to the [initial] owner. It is far preferable that the loss remain with the [initial] owner, for that person had the better (and far cheaper) opportunity to avoid the risk entirely by requiring cash or some other secure form of payment."15

This case demonstrates the value of thorough initial and ongoing due diligence as an essential part of risk management and loss avoidance strategy. Where fraud has occurred in a lending transaction and funds or assets have been transferred to a third party, the potential for loss as against remains with the initial lender. It is therefore incumbent on a lender to ensure it discovers fraud as early as possible and takes all appropriate steps to curb losses.

That being said, it is also important for any lender to note the applicable period in the i Trade decision. BMO was only protected because it took a pledge prior to i Trade revoking its consent to continuing the transaction with Webworx. Had BMO advanced at a time after that consent was revoked, or when it was aware of the fraudulent activity undertaken by Webworx, it is not clear that BMO would have been a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Again, a thorough due diligence process will help minimize the risk of loss.

* Brett Kenworthy is a summer student at Aird & Berlis LLP

Footnotes

1. i Trade Finance Inc. v Bank of Montreal, 2011 SCC 26 ["i Trade"].

2. i Trade at para. 20.

3. Pursuant to Subsection 11(2) of the PPSA, attachment requires a description of the collateral sufficient to enable it to be identified, value to be given and the debtor having acquired rights in the collateral.

4. i Trade at para 9.

5. i Trade at para 11.

6. The Court of Appeal decision is found at i Trade Finance Inc. v Bank of Montreal, 2009 ONCA 615 ["i Trade Court of Appeal Decision"].

7. i Trade Court of Appeal decision at paras 24-25.

8. The Supreme Court also noted that the right created in favour of i Trade was not consensually granted, which also weighed in favour of a finding that the PPSA did not apply. See i Trade at para 30.

9. i Trade at para 31.

10. i Trade at para 41.

11. i Trade at para 45.

12. R. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 257.

13. i Trade at para 49.

14. i Trade at para 60.

15. Angela Swan with the assistance of Jakub Adamski. Canadian Contract Law, 2nd ed (Markham, Ont: LexisNexis Canada, 2009) at 656.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Brett Kenworthy
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McMillan LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McMillan LLP
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions