jos a bank hours today

Connect with us!

Tony Kelley, NMLS #2020661

Contact Us

Defunct Canadian financial services firm

CT Financial Services Inc., operating as Canada Trust, was a financial services holding company headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, which operated in Canada through its trust company subsidiaries, including Canada Trustco Mortgage Company and The Canada Trust Company.

The company's operations were acquired by the Toronto-Dominion Bank in 2000, and merged into Toronto-Dominion's existing retail banking operations, forming the current TD Canada Trust division.

History[edit]

Canada Trust began in 1894 as the General Trust Corporation of Canada. In 1899 it changed its name to the Canada Trust Company. In 1901, the London, Ontario company Huron and Erie Savings and Loan Society, which had been founded in 1864, purchased Canada Trust and began operating it as a subsidiary. The Huron and Erie Savings and Loan Society changed its name in 1915 to the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. Eventually the parent and subsidiary began branding itself Huron and Erie-Canada Trust, and in 1962 changed to Canada Trust-Huron trustco mortgage Erie to reflect the company's national reach. In 1976 Huron and Erie changed its name to Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, which continued to operate Canada Trust as a subsidiary.

Canada Trust was a trust company that offered the same services as a bank. It was one of Canada's largest non-bank financial institutions, with $38 billion in deposits and $176 billion in assets. It had 11,000 employees and 3.5 million customers and operated a network of 413 branches across Canada; and almost 1,000 automated banking machines. Its banking machines were, at one point in the late 1980s to early 1990s, called "Johnnycash" machines. They were even promoted with lifesize cutouts of Johnny Cash asking the question, "Why walk the line?", a reference to one of his hit songs.

In the United States, CT Financial operated through First Federal Savings and Loan Association. First Federal was founded in 1896, and operated through 82 branches throughout New York State. CT Financial also operated other divisions including Truscan Realty Limited (d/b/a Canada Trust Realty), CT Insurance Limited and Canada Trust Bank N.V.

During the 1980s and 1990s, CT Financial was controlled by Imasco, a conglomerate which at that time also owned Imperial Tobacco Canada and Shoppers Drug Mart. Imasco was publicly traded, although it was controlled trustco mortgage British American Tobacco. During the late 1990s, some synergy between the companies manifested in the form of Canada Trust ATMs appearing in or adjacent to Shoppers Drug Mart locations.

In 1999, BAT moved to take Imasco private, but had no interest in the company's non-tobacco assets, which put Canada Trust in play. CIBC had long indicated its interest in Canada Trust, but ultimately BAT accepted an $8 billion offer from the Toronto-Dominion Bank.^[3] Following the completion of this deal on February 1, 2000, Canada Trust's retail banking operations were integrated into TD's similar operations, now collectively known as TD Canada Trust.

TD continues to operate The Canada Trust Company as a subsidiary entity (having been amalgamated with the aforementioned Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, as well as the bank's existing subsidiary TD Trust Company). That company now primarily provides traditional trust company services, and also services Canada Trust accounts opened prior to the merger with TD trustco mortgage existing TD Canada Trust-branded accounts are actually issued by TD Bank itself).^[4][5]

References[edit]

Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Full case name	Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v. Her Majesty The Queen
Citations	2011 SCC 36, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 635
Docket No.	33422
Prior history	Judgment for the Crown in the Federal Court of Appeal, affirming a decision of the Tax Court of Canada.
Ruling	Appeal allowed.
The entirety of a cheque, including any instructions on the front and back, must be considered when determining whom the bank has a liability with in paying the money. After a cheque has been delivered to a bank for deposit, the person providing the cheque no longer has an entitlement to it, and is not part of the contractual relationship between the bank and the bank account holder.
Chief Justice:Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices:Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell
Majority	Deschamps J., joined by Binnie, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ.
Dissent	McLachlin C.J., joined by Fish and Abella JJ.
LeBel and Charron JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada, is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the intersection of the Income Tax Act^[1] and the Bills of Exchange Act^[2] and the ability to seize funds that have been deposited by a debtor into an account held at a financial institution in Canada.

The facts[edit]

McLeod, a practising member of the Law Society of British Columbia, maintained trustco mortgage trust account with Canada Trustco for the purposes of his law practice. In addition, he and another lawyer held a joint account at the same branch. Each of the accounts was governed by an agreement. McLeod owed tax to the federal government. The Minister became aware that cheques payable to McLeod were being drawn on the trust account and deposited in the joint account. Each of the cheques during the period in question was drawn on the trust account, was payable to McLeod and was delivered to Trustco with an instruction to deposit the funds in the joint account. This instruction was given by writing "Dep to" and the account number on the back of the cheque.

As the Minister did not have the ability to seize funds from either the trust account or the joint account (because the tax debt was solely in McLeod's name), he therefore focused on the cheques that had been issued, and issued three requirements to pay to Trustco. According to these requirements, Trustco was to pay to the Receiver General moneys otherwise payable to McLeod. In response to the requirements to pay, Trustco disputed its liability on the ground that it was "not indebted to the [taxpayer] alone". The Minister assessed Trustco for the amounts of the cheques for failing to comply with the three requirements to pay. Trustco filed notices of objection. After they were rejected, it appealed to the Tax Court of Canada.

The courts below[edit]

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the Bank's appeal. Little J. held that the proceeds of the cheques were "payable" to McLeod because the debtor-creditor relationship between Trustco and Mr. McLeod required the former to repay the funds deposited in the trust account to the account holder on demand. In his view, Trustco's liability arose when Mr. McLeod "presented the bank with the cheques". This led Little J. to conclude that he did not need to examine the fact that the moneys had actually been transferred from the trust account to the joint account. Therefore, the Minister's requirement to pay had effect.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that no "palpable or overriding error" had been made and unanimously upheld Little J.'s decision.

Appeal to the Supreme Court[edit]

On a 4-3 majority, the appeal was allowed and the assessments vacated.

At the hearing, Trustco argued that the trial judge failed to differentiate between a demand for repayment of funds deposited in an account and the delivery of a cheque for deposit. In its view, it was liable only — as drawee — to pay funds out of the trust account upon proper presentment for payment by the holder of the cheque. At no point was it liable to make a payment to McLeod, the tax debtor. For its part, Canada contended that there was no distinction between presentment of a cheque to the drawee for the payment of cash to McLeod and presentment of a cheque for deposit to the joint account. Its position is that when McLeod delivered the cheques to Trustco and instructed it to pay the amounts into the joint account, he acted as payee, creditor, drawer, and depositor, but that his role as depositor was irrelevant.

The majority judgment[edit]

The Bank was at no point liable to pay M the proceeds of the cheques. The fact that a person is designated as payee on the face of a cheque does not on its own mean that a bank is liable to make a payment to the person. A drawee is answerable to the drawer. The question is to whom the drawee may make the payment. What is on the back of the cheque — the trustco mortgage or the endorsement — is crucial to this question. In this case, the instructions were to deposit the cheques into the joint account. The Trustco mortgage liability to pay monies to M personally cannot be confused with its liability to pay monies to the holders of the joint account. There were no instructions that made the monies payable to M.

There was nothing in the contractual relationships, the Bills of Exchange Act or the common law that would indicate otherwise. In crediting the joint account, sending the cheques to a third party for clearing, and receiving the proceeds, the Bank was acting on the basis of its contractual relationship with the holders of the joint account and not on behalf of M personally. When the Bank debited the trust account the next day, it was not making a payment to M or to an agent acting for him alone. The Bank owed no money to M, as it was acting as the collecting bank for its customers, the holders of the joint account. It did not trustco mortgage the proceeds of the cheques as agent for the payee, M.

The dissent[edit]

The minority disagreed with respect to two narrow points, declaring (based on the Court's opinion in B.M.P. Global Distribution Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia):^[3]

• the bank does not become the holder of a cheque, but rather collects the funds as agent for its principal, and
• a bank receives the funds as the 100 4 f to c agent, and while they are in transit the funds are only payable to the payee.

Subsection 165(3) of the BEA does not establish that the bank becomes a holder of the cheque ― its limited objective is achieved by granting the collecting bank all the rights and powers of a holder in due course, and does not require the bank to be actually designated a holder in due course. Once the Bank received M's cheques to himself, its liability to its customer was triggered. The Bank was therefore contractually bound to honour its customer's demand to pay him. As such, all of the requirements of s. 224(1) of the ITA were met, and the requirement to pay attached to the money in transit between M's accounts.

Aftermath[edit]

The ruling conflicts with established principles governing banking and bills of exchange law in Canada. The minority also noted that the majority's view of a joint account "may negatively impact other areas of the law", which may require amendment of the relevant statutes.^[4]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Full case name	Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v. Her Majesty The Queen
Citations	2011 SCC 36, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 635
Docket No.	33422
Prior history	Judgment for the Crown in the Federal Court of Appeal, affirming a decision of the Tax Court of Canada.
Ruling	Appeal allowed.
The entirety of a cheque, including any instructions on the front and back, must be considered when determining whom the bank has a liability with in paying the money. After a cheque has been delivered to a bank for deposit, the person providing the cheque no longer has an entitlement to it, and is not part of the contractual relationship between the bank and the bank account holder.
Chief Justice:Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices:Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell
Majority	Deschamps J., joined by Binnie, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ.
Dissent	McLachlin C.J., joined by Fish and Abella JJ.
LeBel and Charron JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co v Canada, is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the intersection of the Income Tax Act^[1] and the Bills of Exchange Act^[2] and the ability to seize funds that have been deposited by a debtor into an account held at a financial institution in Canada.

The facts[edit]

McLeod, a practising member of the Law Society of British Columbia, maintained a trust account with Canada Trustco for the purposes of his law practice. In addition, he and another lawyer held a joint account at the same branch. Each of the accounts was governed by an agreement. McLeod owed tax to the federal government. The Minister became aware that cheques payable to McLeod were being drawn on the trust account and deposited in the joint account. Each of the cheques during the period in question was drawn on the trust account, was payable to McLeod and was delivered to Trustco with an instruction to deposit the funds in the joint account. This instruction was given by writing "Dep to" and the account number on the back of the cheque.

As the Minister did not have the ability to seize funds from either the trust account or the joint account (because the tax debt was solely in McLeod's name), he therefore focused on the cheques that had been issued, and issued three requirements to pay to Trustco. According to these requirements, Trustco was to pay to the Receiver General moneys otherwise payable to McLeod. In response to the requirements to pay, Trustco disputed its liability on the ground that it was "not indebted to the [taxpayer] alone". The Minister assessed Trustco for the amounts of the cheques for failing to comply with the three requirements to pay. Trustco filed notices of objection. After they were rejected, it appealed to the Tax Court of Canada.

The courts below[edit]

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the Bank's appeal. Little J. held that the proceeds of the cheques were "payable" to McLeod because the debtor-creditor relationship between Trustco and Mr. McLeod required the former to repay the funds deposited in the trust account to the account holder on demand. In his view, Trustco's liability arose when Mr. McLeod "presented the bank with the cheques". This led Little J. to conclude that he did not need to examine the fact that the moneys had actually been transferred from the trust account to the joint account. Therefore, the Minister's requirement to pay had effect.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that no "palpable or overriding error" had been made and unanimously upheld Little J.'s decision.

Appeal to the Supreme Court[edit]

On a 4-3 majority, the appeal was allowed and the assessments vacated.

At the hearing, Trustco argued that the trial judge failed to differentiate between a demand for repayment of funds deposited in an account and the delivery of a cheque for deposit. In its view, it was liable only — as drawee — to pay funds out of the trust account upon proper presentment for payment by the holder of the cheque. At no point was it liable to make a payment to McLeod, the tax debtor. For its part, Canada contended that there was no distinction between presentment of a cheque to the drawee for the payment of cash to McLeod and presentment of a cheque for deposit to the joint account. Its position is that when McLeod delivered the cheques to Trustco and instructed it to pay the amounts into the joint account, he acted as payee, creditor, drawer, and depositor, but that his role as depositor was irrelevant.

The majority judgment[edit]

The Bank was at no point liable to pay M the proceeds of the cheques. The fact that a person is designated as payee on the face of a cheque does not on its own mean that a bank is liable to make a payment to the person. A drawee is answerable to the drawer. The question is to whom the drawee may make the payment. What is on the back of the cheque — the instructions or the endorsement — is crucial to this question. In this case, the instructions were to deposit the cheques into the joint account. The Bank's liability to pay monies to M personally cannot be confused with its liability to pay monies to the holders of the joint account. There were no instructions that made the monies payable to M.

There was nothing in the contractual relationships, the Bills of Exchange Act or the common law that would indicate otherwise. In crediting the joint account, sending the cheques to a third party for clearing, and receiving the proceeds, the Bank was acting on the basis of its contractual relationship with the holders of the joint account and not on behalf of M personally. When the Bank debited the trust account the next day, it was not making a payment to M or to an agent acting for him alone. The Bank owed no money to M, as it was acting as the collecting bank for its customers, the holders of the joint account. It did not collect the proceeds of the cheques as agent for the payee, M.

The dissent[edit]

The minority disagreed with respect to two narrow points, declaring (based on the Court's opinion in B.M.P. Global Distribution Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia):^[3]

• the bank does not become the holder of a cheque, but rather collects the funds as agent for its principal, and
• a bank receives the funds as the payee's agent, and while they are in transit the funds are only payable to the payee.

Subsection 165(3) of the BEA does not establish that the bank becomes a holder of the cheque ― its limited objective is achieved by granting the collecting bank all the rights and powers of a holder in due course, and does not require the bank to be actually designated a holder in due course. Once the Bank received M's cheques to himself, its liability to its customer was triggered. The Bank was therefore contractually bound to honour its customer's demand to pay him. As such, all of the requirements of s. 224(1) of the ITA were met, and the requirement to pay attached to the money in transit between M's accounts.

Aftermath[edit]

The ruling conflicts with established principles governing banking and bills of exchange law in Canada. The minority also noted that the majority's view of a joint account "may negatively impact other areas of the law", which may require amendment of the relevant statutes.^[4]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

About TrustCo Bank Corp NY

TrustCo Bank Corp NY is a savings and loan holding company. The Company's principal subsidiary is Trustco Bank (the Bank). The Bank focuses on providing service to the communities served by its branch-banking network. It operates through community banking segment. The Company operates in the geographical region of Upstate New York with branches also in Florida and the mid-Hudson valley region of New York. The Bank's subsidiary, Trustco Realty Corp., is a real estate investment trust (REIT) formed to acquire, hold and manage real estate mortgage assets, including residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. The Bank's trust department operates under the name, Trustco Financial Services, and serves as executor of estates and trustee of personal trusts, provides asset and wealth management services, and provides estate planning and related advice, provides custodial services.

Executive Leadership

Key Stats

Revenue (MM, USD)

EPS (USD)

Documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) require Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher to view, download Adobe® Acrobat Reader.