Advantage Credit Union v. Funk, (2003) 238 Sask.R. 198 (CA)

• Judge: Cameron, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: October 07, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2003), 238 Sask.R. 198 (CA);2003 SKCA 98

Advantage Credit v. Funk (2003), 238 Sask.R. 198 (CA);

    305 W.A.C. 198

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.056

Advantage Credit Union (appellant) v. Wayne L. Funk (respondent)

(No. 560; 2003 SKCA 98)

Indexed As: Advantage Credit Union v. Funk

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Cameron, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.

October 7, 2003.

Summary:

A Small Claims judge held that Advantage Credit Union could not charge back a cheque that had been deposited to Funk's account and subsequently dishonoured by the cheque's payor, nor could it claim against Funk as a holder in due course of the cheque. Advantage appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 229, dismissed the appeal. Advantage appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Banks and Banking - Topic 3512

Cheques and orders drawn on deposits - Payment of cheques - General - Stop payment order - General - On September 28, Funk's employer, W.D. Transport, drew a cheque for $1205.39 payable to Funk and transmitted it, as arranged, to Advantage Credit Union where Funk had an account - Advantage credited Funk's account on September 29 - The transaction was defined on Funk's account statement as a "Transfer In from W.D. Transport" - By October 1, Funk had drawn down the account to $17.91 - Advantage sent the cheque for processing on September 29 - On October 2, before the cheque cleared, W.D. Transport stopped payment - On October 3, Advantage was informed of the stop payment - On October 3, it charged back Funk's account for $1205.39, placing it in an overdraft position - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that Advantage was entitled to i) charge back the cheque that had been deposited and subsequently dishonoured and ii) claim against Funk as a holder in due course.

Banks and Banking - Topic 3585

Cheques and orders drawn on deposits - Dishonour of cheques - Rights of bank - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 3512 ].

Negotiable Instruments - Topic 4204

Cheques - Rights of holder in due course - What constitutes a holder in due course - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 3512 ].

Negotiable Instruments - Topic 4407

Cheques - Stop payment orders - Consequences of - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 3512 ].

Cases Noticed:

Royal Bank of Canada v. Wild (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 188 (Ont. C.A.), folld. [para. 8, footnote 2].

W.P.P.C Investments Corp. v. McKay (1990), 84 Sask.R. 130 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 3].

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Kindersley District Credit Union Ltd. (1993), 113 Sask.R. 298; 52 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Crawford and Falconbridge, Banking and Bills of Exchange (8th Ed. 1986), pp. 1055 to 1057 [para. 29, footnote 4].

Counsel:

Donald Layh, for the appellant;

Respondent appearing on his own behalf.

This appeal was heard by Cameron, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on October 7, 2003. On the same date, Jackson, J.A., orally delivered the following decision, which was released in writing on October 10, 2003.