As a result of my efforts, recently the CBC did a feature on my clients who were victimized by the Toronto – Dominion Bankwho drilled their late father’s safety deposit box in 2012, without warning or permission being given. The matter came to light when the children accessed the safety deposit box after he passed away in 2017.
A month after he passed away, the children went to the bank to close the box. Initially, the bank was unable to find the safety deposit box, and they had no records of it. Several weeks later they returned and luckily one of the clerks was able to locate it.
What they found was that the bank had indeed drilled the box for what they said was non-payment even though my clients oversaw their father’s bills and assets. The bank could not provide a copy of the notice that had been sent to their father. In fact, three notices had to have been sent by mail, including one that was sent by registered mail. The bank could not, or refused to provide proof of any of these notices.
The bank also declined to provide proof that the rental fees were in arrears as they had claim that they had lost all records.
The only thing provided was a signature card showing the signatures of two employees who were present when the box was drilled. Unfortunately, their signatures were not legible and the bank refused to provide their names citing privacy concerns.
In fact, the bank scratched out the names of the witnesses so that they could not be identified, and could be asked to provide information. Based on this I could speculate that the bank didn’t want these two witnesses to be found or questioned.
The first thing that entered my mind was: What is the purpose of having a witness which could not be identified and therefore cannot tell anyone what actually took place. Secondly, if a crime, and in this case, the crime of theft actually took place, privacy legislation cannot be invoked to cover the commission of a crime. Was it a possible attempt by the bank to erase or at least hide any evidence?
Further, the bank claimed that they had lost all records of the matter. How could they do that? Don’t they have the obligation to keep records?
Initially, the bank offered a settlement of $250.00 even though the safety deposit box contained the 18 carat gold watches and ring worn by their parents. The box with the ring was given to them; absent the ring. Also, like many of the elderly, they collected silver dollars and 50 cent pieces which were made of silver, unlike current Canadian coins. Silver is now more valuable than in the past.
With respect to the jewellery, I would gather that this amount was arrived at by some lawyer who knows nothing about appraising jewellery. It is as if you ask your auto mechanic to quote you a price on a root canal.
Not being satisfied by this “lip service” offer, my clients then appealed the bank’s decision to the Ombudsman for Bank Services and Investments (OBSI). The OBSI is an independent organization established and funded by the banks to settle disputes that people have with the banks.
This is like saying that the OBSI is independent from the banks, even though they are funded by them. How independent is this, when you are paid by the banks to settle disputes that individuals have with the banks? Does one not think that the OBSI would not have a bias? How does one ensure that the OBSI would not be beholden to the banks, which in this case happens to fund them and pay their salaries?
Nevertheless, the OBSI recommended that my clients be compensated in the amount of $4,200.00 for their misfortune which was inflicted on them by TD Bank. Their rationale was that there was a 50-50 percent chance that the items were there. But in saying that, there is also a 50-50 percent chance that the bank took the items.
Let’s face it, people use banks to hold onto their assets because banks say that people should trust them. Banks market themselves, and have always placed an emphasis on the fact that trust is the cornerstone of the relationship with their clients and depositors. Here, clearly, and according to my clients, TD Bank violated any trust that they had with that family.
What was most intriguing was an acknowledgment in this investigation was that in 2012 TD Bank drilled 16,000 safety deposit boxes across Canada for the purpose of “a large scales initiative to take inventory”. This was stated in writing, not by TD but by the OBSI. TD never denied this as it was a finding by the OBSI.
To address the concept of taking inventory, does TD Bank have the right to know what is in one’s safety deposit box. People use safety deposit boxes to store the valuables that they do not want anyone to know about.
There is also the legal issue called the Duty of Care. TD Bank has an obligation to safeguard the valuables and possessions that have been entrusted to them for safekeeping.
(IMBED VIDEO FROM CBC’S GO PUBLIC)
Since the airing of this issue by the CBC, I have received calls from others who were victimized by TD Bank in the same way. But I also received calls from others who were victimized in the same manner by the other banks.
In one case, someone advised that this box contained a rare “moon rock” that had been given to his father, a leading scientist by NASA. After his father had died, the son placed it in his safety deposit box for safekeeping. In the early 2000’s he went to the bank to check his safety deposit box. At that time, they found that none of the keys that been given actually worked. So, the box had to be drilled. Low and behold they found that the safety deposit box had been emptied, and again no records are available.
So, after you finish reading this article, I strongly suggest that you go to your local bank and access your safety deposit box. Take inventory of what’s inside. Preferably take photographs of the contents using your cellphone camera. I suggest using your cellphone camera since it automatically records the date of the photograph, and the location at which it was taken.
Better be safe than sorry!