Canada: Case Summary: Du v. Jameson Bank

Last Updated: July 16 2018
Article by Field LLP


A bank customer who was defrauded when hackers accessed his email account to instruct a bank to make unauthorized wire transfers was unable to recover his money from the bank, which followed instructions sent to it by email (as it was allowed and required to do under the banking contract). "The fact that a customer is a victim of fraud does not result in an automatic transfer of liability to the customer's bank".

Du v. Jameson Bank, 2017 ONSC 2422, per Beaudoin, J. [4279]


The Plaintiff Du was victimized by someone who hacked into his email account and instructed the Defendant bank to execute two wire transfers from Du's account. Du had operated businesses in Canada for 16 years. Before dealing with the Defendant Jameson Bank (the "Bank") he had operated bank and brokerage accounts and signed many agreements with financial institutions.

In January 2013 Du opened a foreign exchange account with the Bank. This followed email communications from Du at to the Bank, and Du signed an application form which provided as follows:

By signing below you certify that the information provided as part of this application is accurate and complete. You authorize those individuals as listed above to provide Jameson Bank with the information required in future dealings with Jameson Bank. You acknowledge that you were provided with the terms and conditions and privacy policy (also available on the website at

Du acknowledged receiving the Bank's Terms and Conditions but did not read them, as he trusted banks and never read their contracts. The relevant Terms and Conditions were as follows:

2.2 Reliance on Instructions. Jameson may rely and act upon telephone, facsimile transmission and any other electronically transmitted instructions from or purporting to be from you (including an authorized person) and which Jameson believes in good faith to be genuine.

5. Wire transfers

d) Absent gross negligence or wilful misconduct by Jameson or any of its employees, Jameson shall not be responsible or liable for any damages, losses, expenses or the like that you may directly or indirectly incur or arising from or in connection with any wire transfer. Jameson shall not be responsible for any failure, unavailability or malfunction of communications, electronic or other equipment which may result in misdelivery, nondelivery or delays in delivery of the funds transferred nor shall it be held responsible for the insolvency, neglect, conduct, mistake, default, delay, misappropriation, negligence or breach of contract by any other bank, entity or person, in connection with the wire transfer, without regard to any agency relationship those persons or entities may have with Jameson.

7. Limitation of Liability

. . .

7.3 Your Responsibility. (A) You are responsible to ensure the accuracy of settlement and delivery instructions in respect of each and every Deal (including, but not limited to, any wire instructions). Jameson shall not, in the absence of gross negligence or wilful misconduct on the part or that of its employees, be responsible for failure, delays or errors in the receipt of such instructions and Jameson shall have no liability for consequential or special damages. (B) You agree to maintain security systems, procedures and controls to prevent and detect (i) the theft of funds; ii) forged, fraudulent and unauthorized instructions and electronic transfer of funds by anyone who is not an Authorized Person; (iii) losses due to fraud or unauthorized access to the service by anyone who is not an Authorized Person.

. . . .

(D) . . . You agree to keep any keys, access codes, security devices and verification procedures safe and confidential, and change them at least as often as the service materials specify. We may establish a routine to verify the source and authenticity of instructions you give us and may verify an instruction before acting on it. We may act on instructions that contain the verification routine without checking the authority.

8.6 Electronic Communications. Jameson may maintain a database in respect of all of your instructions, including recordings of telephone conversations. Jameson's records will be conclusive and binding on you in any dispute, including in any legal proceeding, as the best evidence of your Deals, in the absence of clear proof that Jameson's records are erroneous or incomplete. . . . You agree with Jameson that notwithstanding the risks associated with electronic communications, you hereby authorize Jameson to provide such services in compliance with the procedures established by Jameson from time to time. Any electronic communication that Jameson receives from you or in your name will be considered to be duly authorized and binding upon you. Jameson will be authorized to rely and act upon any signature appearing on a facsimile transmission that purports to be the signature of an Authorized Person.

Du listed (the email address from which he first contacted the Bank) as his email address for electronic communications. He admitted that he was aware of the risks relating to electronic communications from the beginning, that only he could control his security settings, and that protecting the integrity of his email account was his sole responsibility.

In January and February 2012, Du engaged in email communications with the Bank from and instructed the transfer of $32,414 USD to a home builder in Arizona as a down payment on a home there. Jameson complied and Du received notice of the transfer and made no complaints about how that transaction was completed.

In early May 2012, the Bank received (and responded to) several emails from which purported to instruct the Bank to make a number of wire transfers from Du's Bank account, including:

  • A May 10 email instructing the Bank to send $45,000 USD to the EBS Bank of Singapore, which Du claimed was fraudlent in the Action. The Bank complied and received an email back from acknowledging electronic receipt of the Bank's confirmation that the transaction had been completed and indicating that an additional wire transfer would soon be requested.
  • On May 11, an email from instructed the Bank to wired $138,888.88 USD to a title agency in Arizona to complete the purchase of the home there. The Bank responded that there was only $99,463.93 USD in Du's Bank account after the $45,000 USD transfer the day before, insufficient to complete this second transfer instruction. Du denied ever seeing this email from the Bank.
  • Later on May 11, indicating that the funds necessary for the $138,888.88 USD transfer request would be supplied to the Bank at a later date and instructed the Bank to wire a further $90,000 USD to the EBS Bank of Singapore and also to wire $3,000 to Du's Wells Fargo account.

    • Du received an email purporting to be sent from the Bank that this transfer would be completed but this came from a email address slightly altered from that from which previous legitimate emails from the Bank had been sent. The Bank denied sending this email.
    • The Bank wired the $3,000 and Du acknowledged that it made its way into his Wells Fargo account.
  • In these email exchanges messages from to the Bank provided accurate details of Du's main bank, the person at that bank he was dealing with and details about having a cheque from that other bank certified and delivered to the Defendant Bank which only Du could have known. Du could not explain how these particulars could have been discovered by the hackers.
  • The Defendant Bank's internal policies required the Bank to verify instructions to transfer amounts in excess of $150,000 CAD by telephone with the client. None of the Du transactions exceeded that amount.

On May 14, the Bank learned that the emails instructing it to wire the $45,000 and $90,000 USD amounts to the Singapore bank were fraudulent. Du alleged that the instructing emails had been sent by hackers who had accessed his email account. Criminal proceedings were instituted against individuals in Singapore, but this did not result in Du receiving any restitution. Du filed a complaint against the Bank with the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments ("OBSI") which the OBSI dismissed, finding that there was no basis for the Bank to have to indemnify Du.

In April 2014 AFEX purchased the assets of the Jameson Bank. In May 2014 the Jameson Bank was continued as a corporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44 as the Jameson International Foreign Exchange Corporation ("JIFEC").

Du sued Jameson Bank in negligence only. In the case at Bar, Du sought to amend his Statemeht of Claim to add the causes of action of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and bad faith, and to substitute JIFEC as the Defendant for its predecessor Jameson Bank, to which the Bank consented. The Bank opposed Du's application to add AFEX as a Defendant and to add a corporate oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-6 and a claim for money laundering under the federal Proceeds of Crim (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. c.17.

The Bank applied for summary dismissal of the claims against it.

HELD: For the Defendant Bank, opposed claim amendments refused and summary dismissal granted.

The Court refused to allow the opposed amendments.

  • The Court would not add AFEX as a Defendant because that could only be justified for the sought-after oppression remedy, which the Court dismissed.
  • It was not necessary to add JIEFC as a Defendant in light of admissions that any judgment against its predecessor the Jameson Bank would be enforceable against JIEFC.
  • No oppression remedy was available to Du under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, since the Bank was never an OBCA corporation but a Bank and then a federal corporation.
  • No claim was possible under the money laundering legislation since that legislation's requirement that a financial institution ascertain the true identity of a proposed customer because there was an exception where the customer had signed a signature card, which Du had done.

The Court summarized the law regarding applications for summary judgment in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7:

52 The Supreme Court of Canada determined at paras. 4 and 5 of Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (S.C.C.) the following:

4. In interpreting these provisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal placed too high a premium on the "full appreciation" of evidence that can be gained at a conventional trial, given that such a trial is not a realistic alternative for most litigants. In my view, a trial is not required if a summary judgment motion can achieve a fair and just adjudication, if it provides a process that allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to those facts, and is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial.

5. To that end, I conclude that summary judgment rules must be interpreted broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims.

53 As a matter of public policy, where a fair and just adjudication can be achieved in a summary judgment motion, a trial is not required.

. . .

33. As I read Hryniak, the court on a motion for summary judgment should undertake the following analysis:

  1. The court will assume that the parties have placed before it, in some form, all of the evidence that will be available for trial;
  2. On the basis of this record, the court decides whether it can make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to the facts, and thereby achieve a fair and just adjudication of the case on the merits;
  3. If the court cannot grant judgment on the motion, the court should:

    1. Decide those issues that can be decided in accordance with the principles described in 2), above;
    2. Identify the additional steps that will be required to complete the record to enable the court to decide any remaining issues;
    3. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, the court should seize itself of the further steps required to bring the matter to a conclusion.

The Court summarily dismissed the other various claims made by Du. The Court confirmed that where parties like Du who sign agreements without reading them are bound by them (paragraphs 58 – 61). The Court essentially held that the Bank had only acted in accordance with Du's instructions and pursuant to the term of its Terms and Conditions (to which Du had agreed).

  • The Court held that "[t]he fact that a customer is a victim of fraud does not result in an automatic transfer of liability to the customer's bank" (paragraph 64).
  • With respect to breach of contract, the Court held:

55 At the time of the critical events in issue; namely May 2012, Jameson had a contractual relationship with Du which can be best described as a creditor and debtor relationship.2 Jameson was not in any type of advisory relationship with Du. Du opened a foreign exchange account with Jameson which specifically permitted him to give instructions electronically to Jameson through a specific email address controlled solely by Du.

56 Jameson had a common law and contractual obligation to honour its customers' instructions and was entitled to treat its customer's mandate at its face value. Jameson was required to act on its customers instructions so long as he or she had sufficient credit. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Jameson was not obligated to question any transaction which was in accordance with its mandate and was not required to question the instructions received for Du's account.3

57 In this case, Jameson was merely complying with the instructions received from Du via the email address provided by him in his application. This is the same email address subsequently used for the purposes of communicating instructions for an authorized transfer on February 6, 2012. Jameson had no reason to believe the instructions to wire transfer money from Du's foreign exchange account to beneficiaries located in Singapore, received just over two months later, were fraudulent. The emails made reference to Du's personal banker "Julie" at BNS and to a cheque that had been delivered to BNS for certification and disclosed other details that could only be known to Du.

. . .

62 The terms of the application and the account agreement are clear. Du was entitled to provide instructions to Jameson by email address and he did so without complaint to effect a wire transfer to a US account shortly after his opening of the foreign exchange account. Jameson was contractually entitled to rely on those instructions. Du had the sole ability and responsibility to control the security of the email account which was the source of the impugned transactions.

63 There was no obligation in law for Jameson to question the purported transfer. Jameson's compliance with the instructions received from Du's email address did not breach any internal policy or any term of the agreement. The money value of the wire transfers did not require Jameson to obtain his further authorization and confirmation.

  • More specifically, the Court held that the contractual liability exclusion clause in the Terms and Conditions immunized the Bank from liability as Du had tendered no evidence of "gross negligence" or "willful misconduct" required by that clause. There was "no basis in law that would preclude the Defendant from relying on the exclusion of liability clause" (paragraph 74).
  • With respect to negligence, the Court held:

68 The agreement between the parties identified the risks associated with this account, namely operating on the basis of electronic communications. The agreement made it clear that Du assumed the duty of care in relation to that risk. Furthermore, the agreement established standard of care by which Jameson could be held responsible; namely "gross negligence" or "wilful misconduct."

69 The facts and the evidence establish that the alleged loss suffered by Du was caused by a purported fraud committed against Du by an unknown fraudster using Du's email address to give instructions to Jameson. This is the email address used by Du in his initial contact with Jameson. Jameson had historically used that address to communicate with Du and had successfully completed a transaction while relying on that email address.

70 There is nothing on the face of those instructions that should have alerted Jameson to a fraud or that Jameson should have rejected the instructions it had duly received from Du's authorized email address. Those emails contain information that could only be known to Du; knowledge of a cheque to be certified and its amount, the reference to "Julie" at BNS, a reference to her phone number, and the knowledge of a Wells Fargo account in Florida.

The Court concluded as follows:

78 There is no doubt that that the Plaintiff is convinced that Jameson should be held responsible for his loss. His counsel has attempted to present every possible argument to support that conclusion. Regrettably, the facts and the law do not support him. The agreement he signed with Jameson is complete bar to his claims. Du and Jameson were the unfortunate victims of a fraudster who hacked Du's email account. It was Du's failure to secure that account that led to the loss. He assumed that responsibility and I am satisfied on the record before me that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial and that summary judgment should be granted in favour of the Defendant.

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

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

Events from this Firm
22 Jan 2019, Webinar, Calgary, Canada

Learn about the most important professional regulatory Court cases of the past year. What are the key legal trends?

23 Jan 2019, Seminar, Calgary, Canada

Field Law and IISA are excited to present an in-depth workshop on how the legalization of recreational cannabis is impacting and will impact the insurance industry.

6 Feb 2019, Other, Calgary, Canada

Join Field Law for a review of the most important legal cases from 2018.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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