The Fictitious Payee After Teva v. BMO: Has the Pendulum Swung Back Far Enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under Section 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act (‘‘BEA s. 20(5)”) where on a bill of exchange ‘‘the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person, the bill may be treated as payable to bearer.” A bill of exchange includes a cheque. Where BEA s. 20(5) applies to a cheque, its effect is to reallocate forged endorsement losses from banks involved in the collection and payment of the cheque to the drawer. Quite recently, in commenting on Raza Kayani LLP v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, I highlighted the ongoing confusion in the judicial interpretation of BEA s. 20(5) (‘‘Kayani Comment”). That comment does not appear to have been available to the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal in subsequently rendering their judgement in Teva Canada Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal (‘‘Teva”). At the same time, in invoking a policy rationale, in addition to relying on a precedent, the Court in Teva acknowledged my position as had been already expressed in a previous writing on the subject. It thus recognized that as regards to cheque fraud committed by an insider in and on a corporate drawer BEA s. 20(5) is to be interpreted as allocating losses to ‘‘the drawer, who typically is better positioned to discover the fraud or insure against it.” Accordingly, the Court in Teva distinguished Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (‘‘Boma”) and thus restored a measure of consistency between law and good policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".