Then the situation escalated even further
On Monday, August 10th, and again on Tuesday August 11th, we were informed that TD intended to permanently close my mother’s accounts and “de-market” her as a customer. I demanded to know on what grounds this extraordinary decision had been made. A reason could not be provided to us. I therefore demanded that the matter be escalated to someone with greater authority, and the representative agreed that it should be.
On Wednesday, August 12th, I unexpectedly received a telephone call from Sebastian, who identified himself as the manager of TD’s Fraud Department. He initially confirmed that my mother would no longer be permitted to bank with TD. But as we spoke, it became apparent that he did not have the complete facts of the case. I once again explained what had occurred on July 22nd, the circumstances surrounding my mother’s withdrawal, the assurances she had provided, the escalation by the branch manager, the regulatory concerns we raised with TD, and everything we had endured during the three weeks that followed. After hearing the circumstances, Sebastian asked me to give him approximately 30 minutes so that he could review the matter and then he would telephone my mother directly regarding her case.
When he called my mother, he immediately informed us that our accounts had been released. He apologized and acknowledged that the matter should never have reached this point.
After three weeks, we finally had access to our money again.
Think about that for a moment
Your money is sitting in a bank account. You have committed no crime. You cooperate with the bank and clearly state that you are not being defrauded, coerced or acting under duress. Yet access to your money can be restricted while you are left desperately trying to determine why, who authorized it, what evidence justified it and when you will regain control of your own funds.
And in our case, after three weeks of fighting the decision, a senior manager finally reviewed the circumstances, reversed the restriction and acknowledged that it should never have gotten this far.
There Are Limits to Their Authority
Banks have important responsibilities to identify and respond to genuine fraud, money laundering and financial abuse. We do not dispute that. Indeed, protecting elderly and vulnerable customers from genuine financial exploitation is important.
But their authority is not unlimited.
Canada’s Bank Act establishes important protections surrounding Canadians’ access to basic banking services. Section 627.17 generally requires member banks to open retail deposit accounts for consumers who meet the prescribed requirements. Although the Act provides limited exceptions, including where a bank has reasonable grounds to believe an account will be used for illegal or fraudulent purposes, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has made clear that a bank relying on that exception requires evidence establishing those reasonable grounds; mere suspicion is not enough.
Privacy protections are also relevant to what happened to my mother. Under PIPEDA, Canada’s federal private-sector privacy law, organizations may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. Its principles also require organizations to limit collection of personal information to what is necessary for the purposes identified.
That matters when a customer has already answered the legitimate question: Are you being defrauded, coerced or acting under duress? At what point does continued questioning about what a competent adult intends to do with her own money cease to be reasonable fraud prevention and become an unnecessary intrusion into her private affairs?
Likewise, FINTRAC’s anti-money-laundering framework does not make the simple act of withdrawing your own cash proof of criminal activity. Suspicious transaction reporting requires consideration of facts, context and indicators that together establish reasonable grounds to suspect a transaction is related to money laundering or terrorist financing.
A bank may therefore have legitimate grounds to ask reasonable questions when genuine warning signs arise. But there must also be reasonable limits to how far that scrutiny can go.
Once a mentally competent adult has cooperated, denied fraud, money laundering or coercion, and confirmed that she is voluntarily making decisions about her own money, what is the reasonable limit of a financial institution’s authority?
Our experience demonstrates why that question urgently needs an answer.