Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Judge | NISHIKAWA J. |
Citation | 2018 ONSC 4215 |
Date | 05 July 2018 |
Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
Docket Number | CV-17-00578412 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 practice notes
-
How Canadian Courts Have Ruled On Liability In Wire Transfer Fraud
...to follow customer instructions and close transactions quickly. Footnotes 1.Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215. 2. Du v. Jameson Bank, [2017] O.J. No. 3. See for instance: St. Lawrence Testing and Inspection Co. v. Lanark Leeds Distribution Ltd., [2019] O.J.......
-
CropConnect v. Bank of Montreal et al.,
...therefore the party that should bear the loss. [44] In Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215, (“API”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice examined the two lines of authority, originating from the doctrine of unjust......
-
CIBC v. Bloomforex Corp., 2020 ONSC 69
...This approach was considered in another decision of this court in Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215. In a judgment following a three day trial, Nishikawa J. dealt with a claim by BMO seeking the return of $428,000 as money paid under a mistake of fact......
2 cases
-
CropConnect v. Bank of Montreal et al.,
...therefore the party that should bear the loss. [44] In Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215, (“API”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice examined the two lines of authority, originating from the doctrine of unjust......
-
CIBC v. Bloomforex Corp., 2020 ONSC 69
...This approach was considered in another decision of this court in Bank of Montreal v. Asia Pacific International Inc., 2018 ONSC 4215. In a judgment following a three day trial, Nishikawa J. dealt with a claim by BMO seeking the return of $428,000 as money paid under a mistake of fact......