Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Constitutional law - Search and seizure - Bank records - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that ss. 7(3)(d)(i) and 7(h.2) of Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, when coupled with the designation of Bank Crime Prevention Investigation Office as an investigative body, pursuant to s. 26(1)(a.01) do not violate s. 8 of the Charter - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8.

The Applicant, Molson, is a lawyer and the Respondent, Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), was his client in relation to a series of mortgage transactions. The other Applicants include Molson’s wife and members of her family. Molson maintained a mixed trust account at the Toronto Dominion (“TD”) Bank. When RBC became suspicious that it had been a victim of fraud in relation to the mortgage transactions, its investigator provided the TD Bank with information so that disbursements out of Molson’s trust account related to the mortgage advances could be traced. The TD Bank provided RBC with copies of the relevant cheques from Molson’s mixed trust account. This exchange of information took place under the authority of PIPEDA, but without Molson’s knowledge or consent. PIPEDA permits disclosure of personal information by an organization to an “investigative body” where there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the information relates to a breach of an agreement or a law that has been, is being, or is about to be committed. The Bank Crime Prevention and Investigation Office of the Canadian Bankers Association (“BCPIO”) is such a body and all chartered banks in Canada, including the TD and RBC banks are members.

With the information obtained, RBC’s bank investigator was able to construct an analysis of how the mortgage funds received from RBC with respect to Molson’s allegedly fraudulent real estate transactions, were distributed to third parties, including the Applicants. In addition, by gaining access to those records, RBC was successful in obtaining a Mareva injunction and an Anton Piller order. RBC commenced an action against a number of defendants, including the Applicants in December of 2008, alleging a large mortgage fraud. The Applicants sought a declaration that ss. 7(3)(d)(I) and 7(h.2) of PIPEDA violated s. 8 of the Charter.