Ontario couple loses more than $90,000 to fraud — and they say the bank hasn’t offered any help

Gilbert-Leduc told CTV that he had received a large number of missed calls from Scotiabank’s customer service line. He and his wife were cautious about answering at first, as they were aware that fraudulent activity was prevalent. When the couple finally picked up and were told information that seemed authentic — even having the alleged representative pick up after they called the same number back — the couple eventually gave the caller their personal information.

"We had nothing more to lose," Gilbert-Leduc told the outlet.

Unfortunately, Gilbert-Leduc confirmed that money had already been swindled from their account before they shared the information. To make matters worse, the couple feels stuck in financial limbo, as Scotiabank has not been clear as to whether the family will get the stolen funds back.

"They've been giving us 50-50 shots of getting our money back, even stating they know where the money is," Gilbert-Leduc revealed, adding: "They've been in contact with the bank that has the money they were able to trace everything to. Now they have just been saying they don't even know if they can get it back or do anything to support us."

CTV News reached out to the financial institution for comment. While the spokesperson could not speak to the individual matter at hand due to "privacy reasons" they did provide a general statement.

"The bank will never ask clients to disclose their PIN, password or a one-time code on a call they didn't initiate … Scotiabank's customer service line has not been compromised. Fraudsters may spoof phone numbers to make a call appear as though it is coming from the bank," the statement read.

How do banks typically respond in these cases?

Devastating fraud cases like Gilbert-Leduc's underscore how difficult it is to know how a bank will react in these situations. And that's for good reason: banks weigh a wide range of factors when responding to fraudulent transactions.

Under Canadian financial rules (2), federally regulated financial institutions must always investigate a fraudulent incident and "take all relevant factors into account before finding you at fault." According to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC), that includes deciphering whether the incident was reported within a specific amount of time under the bank's account agreement. If that deadline is missed, consumers could be left with no way to recover any missing money.

However, in most cases consumers will not be held responsible for transactions they did not approve or create themselves, so long as they took the necessary precautions. But what do "necessary precautions" look like in complex fraud cases?

The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) — an agency that resolves disputes between banks and customers, but is not a regulator (3) — outlines specific factors it uses when determining compensation for a dispute between a corporation and a consumer. For one, OBSI reviews the agreements between the bank and its customers to determine if either party acted improperly. When it comes to fraud, OBSI notes that account agreements usually state that consumers are "generally responsible for the transactions they authorize to anyone for any reason (4)."

When determining if an individual should be remunerated for being a victim of fraud, OBSI will only recommend compensation if, "based on the circumstances it is reasonable for the firm to be held responsible for the consumer's losses."

In practice, if OBSI determines the consumer failed to protect their personal information, the bank did not have the opportunity to warn or protect the consumer from fraud, or the bank acted reasonably regarding the incident, the agency typically does not recommend compensation when handling a dispute.

Experts have critiqued this model of banks having discretionary strength when it comes to determining fault for fraudulent issues, especially with the rise of extremely sophisticated scams that blur the line between a reasonable and unreasonable transaction. One expert's analysis on bank fraud in Canada noted that the bar to prove the bank made a mistake and acted incorrectly is on the consumer, even in cases of complex elder fraud schemes and bank impersonator scams.