Skip to content

An email scam cautionary tale

By Nancy Rubin, K.C. and Levi Parsche

What happens if a person accidentally makes payment to a hacker, instead of to the person they actually owe money? Should they have to pay again? In the recent decision, Jane Group Limited v. Heritage Gas Limited, 2022 NSSM 36, a small claims court adjudicator said yes.

EFT Payment Scam

In the case, two companies had agreed to split the costs to repair a sidewalk after a natural gas line was installed. Shortly after the repairs were completed, Jane Group emailed Heritage Gas seeking payment of its share. Heritage Gas responded, requesting an invoice for the repairs, and indicated it could pay by electronic funds transfer (“EFT”) or via cheque. So far, so good.

Then, Heritage Gas received what it assumed was a response from Jane Group, providing banking information and instructions to send payment via EFT. Unfortunately, this email was actually from an online hacker who had intercepted previous communications. The hacker, representing themselves as the Jane Group president, provided information for a fraudulent bank account, and asked for the money to be deposited that same day.

Heritage Gas emailed Jane Group again indicating it needed an invoice before it could make a payment. In response, (and from a different email address) Jane Group provided an invoice, which indicated payment should be made by cheque to a mailing address.

Unfortunately, upon receipt of the invoice, Heritage Gas followed the earlier EFT instructions that had been sent, depositing the payment into the fraudulent bank account provided by the hacker.

Decision

Having not received payment, Jane Group sued for recovery from Heritage Gas.  Counsel for Jane Group argued that there were several “red flags” in the email from the hacker (spacing and typographical errors) which should have triggered a follow-up by Heritage Gas, not to mention the discrepancy in the direction to pay via EFT or cheque.

On the other hand, counsel for Heritage Gas argued that the loss of money was due to Jane Group’s “carelessness” and lack of cybersecurity.

In the end, Adjudicator Darling found that both parties were innocent victims of the hacker and ruled that as neither party had exhibited blameworthy conduct, the case must be decided in favour of the Claimant, Jane Group.

Key Takeaway

As we move towards an increasingly digital world, this case serves as a reminder to keep an eye out for fraudulent activity. Take extra steps to make sure your electronic funds transfers are secure.  Watch out for email red flags (typos, suspicious links, misspellings, a sense of urgency) and confirm payment details via an additional method – otherwise you might end up on the hook and have to pay twice!


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact the authors.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Cybersecurity class actions against database defendants persist, but hurdles for plaintiffs remain

July 25, 2024

By Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Meaghan McCaw and Bertina Lou[1] Two decisions earlier this month from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia left open the question as to whether so-called “database defendants” can be held…

Read More

Let’s talk about batteries: Nova Scotia Power’s latest development in renewable energy

July 18, 2024

In conjunction with our upcoming sponsorship of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce luncheon, featuring the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources the Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, we are pleased to present a Thought Leadership article highlighting…

Read More

“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top