Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Labrador Marine Inc. (LMI) was defrauded of $373,938.66 after Unknown Person(s) impersonated one of its suppliers via email and redirected payment to a CIBC account in Toronto, Ontario.

• Jurisdiction was established through the "real and substantial connection" test, as the tort was committed in Newfoundland and Labrador where the false invoice was received and payment authorized.

• A strong prima facie case of civil fraud was demonstrated through affidavit evidence from LMI's Vice President and Controller and the supplier's service manager, confirming the fraudulent misrepresentation and resulting financial loss.

• Risk of asset dissipation was inferred from the fraudulent conduct itself, consistent with case law recognizing that fraud justifies such an inference without direct evidence of intended fund removal.

• The Norwich order required balancing LMI's need for banking records against the Unknown Person(s)' privacy interests under both PIPEDA and common law confidentiality obligations.

• Public interest considerations weighed in favour of granting both orders, as interjurisdictional fraud is a growing problem and courts should take measures to protect the economic interests of victims of fraud.

The fraudulent scheme

On 13 November 2025, Labrador Marine Inc. (LMI), a Newfoundland and Labrador company, received an invoice for $373,938.66 for equipment it had ordered from one of its suppliers. The following day, on 14 November 2025, Unknown Person(s) emailed LMI while impersonating the supplier, stating that the supplier's bank account information had changed and requesting that payment for the equipment be made to a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) account located at a branch in Toronto, Ontario. As a result of these representations, LMI changed the banking information it had on record for the supplier. On 25 November 2025, LMI made a payment of $373,938.66 to the CIBC account on a false understanding that the money was being sent to the supplier.

Discovery of the fraud

On 17 December 2025, the Royal Bank of Canada notified LMI that CIBC had flagged the transaction as potentially fraudulent. On that same day, LMI contacted the supplier, who confirmed that it had not changed its banking information and that the transaction was indeed fraudulent. Affidavit evidence from Ramy Hamed, the service manager of the supplier, confirmed that after the alleged fraud, LMI paid the supplier the full balance of the invoice. His evidence confirms that LMI suffered a loss.

LMI's application to the court

LMI applied to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador for two remedies: a Mareva injunction to freeze the CIBC account and prevent the dissipation of funds, and a Norwich order to compel CIBC to provide information about the account so it could pursue legal action to recover the funds from the Unknown Person(s). The information sought included the name(s), mailing addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers associated with the registered holder of the CIBC account. The application was heard by Justice Justin S.C. Mellor on 18 and 26 March 2026, with oral judgment delivered on 1 April 2026. CIBC was given notice but did not appear at the hearing. In correspondence, CIBC indicated that it would take no position on the application, provided LMI did not seek costs against it, and that it was given a reasonable amount of time to disclose the banking information.

Jurisdictional analysis

A threshold issue was whether the Newfoundland and Labrador court had jurisdiction over Unknown Person(s) whose whereabouts were unknown, particularly since the bank account was located in Ontario. The court noted that a Mareva injunction is an equitable remedy that acts in personam (against the person) and not in rem (against the property). Applying the two-step "real and substantial connection" test from Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd., 2012 SCC 17, the court found that the tort was committed in Newfoundland and Labrador. The false invoice with the Unknown Person(s)' CIBC account number was addressed and transmitted to LMI's office in Conception Bay South, NL, and the authorization to pay the false invoice also occurred in the province. The court concluded it was entitled to assume jurisdiction, while noting that since this was only an ex parte application, the Unknown Person(s) remained free to bring an application to rebut the connection and attempt to set aside the order based on a lack of jurisdiction.

The Mareva injunction analysis

Justice Mellor noted that there are no reported decisions in Newfoundland and Labrador setting out the requirements for a Mareva injunction. After reviewing approaches from different provinces, the court adopted the more flexible British Columbia approach as summarized in Kepis & Pobe Financial Group Inc. v. Timis Corporation, 2018 BCCA 420, which asks whether the granting of an injunction is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case. The test required LMI to establish a strong prima facie case and to show that, in balancing the interests of the parties, relevant factors — including the existence of exigible assets and the risk of disposal or dissipation — favoured the injunction. The affidavit evidence of Stephanie Normore, LMI's Vice President and Controller, satisfied the requirement for a strong prima facie case of civil fraud. Attached as exhibits to her affidavit were an email from the Unknown Person(s) impersonating LMI's supplier and inducing LMI to make a payment into the fraudulent account, and proof that LMI paid the invoice by depositing money into the Unknown Person(s)' CIBC account, thereby causing a loss. Although LMI had not put forward any evidence that the Unknown Person(s) would drain the funds from the CIBC account, the court found that the risk of asset dissipation could be inferred from the fraudulent conduct, consistent with the approach in Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership Architects Designers Planners v. Maki, 2014 BCSC 2439. The court also considered the public interest, noting that interjurisdictional fraud is a growing problem and that the public interest weighs in favour of courts taking measures to protect the economic interests of victims of fraud.

The Norwich order analysis

For the Norwich order, the court applied the five requirements set out by Justice Mason in Alberta Treasury Branches v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575. On the first factor, the court found that the strong prima facie case already established for the Mareva injunction was considerably higher than the bona fide claim standard required for a Norwich order. On the second factor, there was no doubt about the connection between LMI and CIBC, as the affidavit of Ms. Normore confirmed the money was deposited into the CIBC account and that it was CIBC that flagged the account for potential fraud. On the third factor, the court found that obtaining the banking records was LMI's only means to identify the Unknown Person(s) and potentially recover the money, with no other options available. On the fourth factor, LMI provided a draft order stating it would pay reasonable costs incurred by CIBC in complying with the order. On the fifth factor — the interests of justice — the court balanced LMI's need for disclosure against the Unknown Person(s)' privacy rights. The court acknowledged that financial information is generally extremely sensitive, as noted in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang, 2016 SCC 50, and that the information sought was protected by both the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the common law duty of bank confidentiality recognized in Tournier v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England, [1924] 1 KB 461. However, the court found that both PIPEDA and the common law recognize exceptions: section 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA creates an exception where there is an order made by a court, and in Tournier, Lord Atkin recognized an exception for protecting the bank or persons interested or the public against fraud or crime. The court concluded that the interests of justice and the public interest outweigh the Unknown Person(s)' privacy interest.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Mellor granted both the Mareva injunction and the Norwich order in favour of LMI, as drafted. The orders were granted for a period of 60 days, as CIBC had indicated that it would require at least 30 days to provide information related to the account. The exact amount ultimately recoverable by LMI cannot be determined from this decision.