A British Columbia tribunal has ruled that banks must protect customers from fraud but are not responsible when clients make their own errors, dismissing a claim from a Vancouver man who mistakenly sent $2,000 to the wrong phone number.In a decision released by the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal, adjudicator Amanda Binnie found that Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) was not at fault after Martin Chan accidentally transferred money to an outdated cellphone number and then sent the password to that same number, allowing an unknown third party to claim the funds.“I accept a bank owes a duty of care to its customers to warn of potential fraudulent schemes,” wrote Binnie. “However, there is no evidence to suggest there is a similar fraudulent scheme at play here.”.The incident occurred in 2022 when Chan attempted to e-transfer $2,000 to a relative. The tribunal heard that Chan used an old number by mistake, then sent the password to that incorrect number. By the time he realized the error, the transfer had already been completed and the money withdrawn.CIBC declined to reimburse Chan or investigate further, arguing that it was his responsibility to enter the correct phone number. The tribunal agreed. “The risks of doing so would be obvious,” said Binnie, noting that Chan admitted the mistake and did not prove the amount was unusually large or required extra caution..“I find Mr. Chan has not proven the bank breached its duty of care,” the ruling stated. While the tribunal acknowledged the bank owed Chan a duty as a customer, it concluded that a bank’s responsibility in cases of mistaken e-transfers is not widely understood but does not extend to covering user errors.Chan also requested that the bank be forced to disclose its internal policies on mistaken or fraudulent transfers. That request was denied as overly broad, with Binnie noting that small claims courts have limited authority to compel such disclosures.“The reason for the loss is his own mistake,” she wrote in conclusion.
A British Columbia tribunal has ruled that banks must protect customers from fraud but are not responsible when clients make their own errors, dismissing a claim from a Vancouver man who mistakenly sent $2,000 to the wrong phone number.In a decision released by the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal, adjudicator Amanda Binnie found that Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) was not at fault after Martin Chan accidentally transferred money to an outdated cellphone number and then sent the password to that same number, allowing an unknown third party to claim the funds.“I accept a bank owes a duty of care to its customers to warn of potential fraudulent schemes,” wrote Binnie. “However, there is no evidence to suggest there is a similar fraudulent scheme at play here.”.The incident occurred in 2022 when Chan attempted to e-transfer $2,000 to a relative. The tribunal heard that Chan used an old number by mistake, then sent the password to that incorrect number. By the time he realized the error, the transfer had already been completed and the money withdrawn.CIBC declined to reimburse Chan or investigate further, arguing that it was his responsibility to enter the correct phone number. The tribunal agreed. “The risks of doing so would be obvious,” said Binnie, noting that Chan admitted the mistake and did not prove the amount was unusually large or required extra caution..“I find Mr. Chan has not proven the bank breached its duty of care,” the ruling stated. While the tribunal acknowledged the bank owed Chan a duty as a customer, it concluded that a bank’s responsibility in cases of mistaken e-transfers is not widely understood but does not extend to covering user errors.Chan also requested that the bank be forced to disclose its internal policies on mistaken or fraudulent transfers. That request was denied as overly broad, with Binnie noting that small claims courts have limited authority to compel such disclosures.“The reason for the loss is his own mistake,” she wrote in conclusion.
