A lawyer has been awarded more than $70 000 after a bank, among other things, defamed him by dishonouring his valid cheques.
Attorney Philip Pilgrim sued the Royal Bank of Canada and its officer in charge of the Hastings branch, Darrell Wilson, over the bank’s mistake which led to its dishonouring several of Pilgrim’s cheques to merchants and individuals.
In June 2001 Pilgrim opened a chequing account with the bank with an agreed overdraft facility of $15 000 and between June 2004 and April 2005 he made deposits totalling more than $10 000. However, none of the deposits was credited to the account and between October 2005 and May 2006 Pilgrim drew nine cheques all of which were dishonoured and returned to the payees. Pilgrim contacted Wilson after the first returned cheque but the problem kept recurring.
Justice Kaye Goodridge in a decision last week awarded Pilgrim $40 000, along with $30 000 for breach of contract and $5 750 in special damages saying that only a substantial amount would meet the justice of the case.
“Most if not all of the payees of these cheques are persons with whom the plaintiff has an ongoing professional relationship . . . his landlord, service station, insurance company and his doctor. There is no doubt that the imputation of dishonesty inherent in dishonouring the plaintiff’s cheques is great,” Justice Goodridge said.
Through his attorney Olson Alleyne, Pilgrim argued that all of his cheques were within his limit and that the bank wrongfully dishonoured them.
Meanwhile Ramon Alleyne and Faye Finisterre, appearing for the defendants, had argued that Pilgrim, since he was not a trader was entitled to “nominal damages” and the wrongful dishonouring of the cheques was not defamatory and that in any case the damages might be mitigated on proof of the publication of an apology.
But the court said that there was evidence that a draft apology was submitted to the plaintiff by the defendants but this was rejected as being inadequate.
“In summary, the defendants did not apologize . . . . In light of the plaintiff’s evidence of the comments he had to endure in the service station and the anonymous calls he received, it is inconceivable an award of nominal damages could be appropriate,” Justice Goodridge said.
