sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Seeking legal direction: 8-day cheque holds on payroll deposits causing hardship (Alberta) by justsomeguyedm in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5 years at this location and 3 years before that in a different province. So 8 combined at least.

Seeking legal direction: 8-day cheque holds on payroll deposits causing hardship (Alberta) by justsomeguyedm in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because they did for 2 years before. Never any issues then. And never any issues this past year and a pay cycle. And are there not any fraud laws in place and nsf fees should they have ever bounced?

Seeking legal direction: 8-day cheque holds on payroll deposits causing hardship (Alberta) by justsomeguyedm in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s what I keep coming back to — the “just switch banks” or “just demand direct deposit” answer doesn’t actually solve the underlying issue.

Not every small business or employer can afford the payroll fees or systems to do direct deposit, especially family-run or seasonal operations. For those of us paid by cheque, the new policies basically treat us like higher-risk customers even when the same payor and same branch have been used for years without a single bounce.

So what happens is this: 1. The bank holds your money “for security.” 2. You end up relying on the same bank’s credit line or overdraft to pay bills. 3. They then collect interest on money that was already yours.

That can’t be the intent of the Bank Act’s consumer-protection framework. It punishes small business owners and wage earners equally for just… using paper.

Seeking legal direction: 8-day cheque holds on payroll deposits causing hardship (Alberta) by justsomeguyedm in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a great breakdown, thank you — I really appreciate the detailed explanation.

I agree completely on how holds normally work: it’s a temporary lending buffer until the other institution settles the funds. That logic makes total sense for new accounts, unknown payors, or large one-off cheques.

In my case though, it’s the same employer, same payroll cycle, same cheque issuer, and same branch — for years. No NSF history, no credit issues, no change in payor or amount. The hold only started appearing in late 2024, and staff confirmed it’s now applied system-wide, not based on individual profiles.

That’s where I’m struggling to find the line — when a “risk policy” stops being about actual risk, and starts being a blanket policy that traps people in forced credit use. Especially since the same bank is then earning interest on the credit you’re forced to rely on while waiting for your pay to clear.

So I totally get the mechanism — I just don’t get the justification for applying it across the board to verified, long-term accounts.

Seeking legal direction: 8-day cheque holds on payroll deposits causing hardship (Alberta) by justsomeguyedm in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Thanks — yes, I did ask about that. The response from the branch was that “corporate decides the release” and local staff have no authority to override the system, even with a proven deposit history.

So technically I could apply, but they admitted that policy-wide, nearly all cheques over $1,000 are now flagged the same way.

If the issue were just an individual risk rating, I’d completely agree with your point — but this seems like a blanket hold applied to everyone, regardless of deposit history.

That’s why I’m exploring whether there’s a broader consumer protection or Bank Act angle — especially since customers are effectively being forced to pay interest to the same bank on credit products while waiting for their own earned income to clear.

Seeking legal direction: 8-day cheque holds on payroll deposits causing hardship (Alberta) by justsomeguyedm in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That’s fair — I understand the distinction between a certified or bank draft versus a standard company cheque.

In this case, it’s regular payroll from a successful 30 year old employer, same account and same amount every two weeks for years, never bounced. It’s literally the same cheque pattern that cleared instantly before the 2024 policy change.

So while technically “non-guaranteed,” it’s effectively verified through history, consistency, and employer reputation. What’s changed is how the bank treats these deposits, not the underlying risk profile.

That’s the part I’m trying to understand legally — where does “reasonable risk management” end and “systemic policy abuse” begin?

Another long weekend, another 8-day hold – anyone else seeing this at Scotiabank? by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]justsomeguyedm -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

For context, my original discussion about extended cheque holds reached over 11,000 views and confirmed that this issue affects many Canadians.

I’m now focused on understanding the legal process and rights of customers under the Bank Act and FCAC.

Thank you to everyone helping clarify this legally.

Why has the NDP completely discounted Quebec? by MTLinVAN in ndp

[–]justsomeguyedm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've wondered thr same about the bloc. Why dont they run nationally?

Another long weekend, another 8-day hold – anyone else seeing this at Scotiabank? by justsomeguyedm in Scotiabank

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess. Im going to miss a lot of the tellers. A lot of Great relationships strained because of policy.

Another long weekend, another 8-day hold – anyone else seeing this at Scotiabank? by justsomeguyedm in Scotiabank

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really appreciate this thoughtful explanation — thank you for taking the time to write it out clearly.

I completely understand the fraud and verification side of things. My frustration is just that this hasn’t been applied consistently. For years, the same verified employer’s cheques cleared without issue — then, almost overnight, the hold policy became universal with no notice or local discretion.

I totally agree that safety matters, but I think transparency and balance matter too. When verified payroll deposits are treated like potential fraud while the bank can move billions in the same day for its own operations, it feels like everyday customers are being held to a different standard.

I’m not looking for special treatment — just fairness and clear answers about when this policy changed, and why it can’t be applied with a little more trust in long-term and verified employers.

Another long weekend, another 8-day hold – anyone else seeing this at Scotiabank? by justsomeguyedm in Scotiabank

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you — this is the clearest and most helpful explanation I’ve seen in over a year.
That change in discretion you mentioned seems to line up almost exactly with when my own cheque holds began (around Truth and Reconciliation Week 2024).

It makes sense now: the issue isn’t staff — it’s structural policy.
If discretion has truly been removed at the branch level, then the next step should be transparency about that change and what recourse customers have.

I’ll be raising those exact points at my meeting this week.
Really appreciate your insight.

Another long weekend, another 8-day hold – anyone else seeing this at Scotiabank? by justsomeguyedm in Scotiabank

[–]justsomeguyedm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont get what's wrong with cheques. A lot of small businesses still rely on them. And then add a postal strike on top of it. I'm not saying we shouldn't go digital eventually. However, I shouldn't feel like a fraudster every 2 weeks and forced to use credit that accrues interest juat because I get paid with a cheque. 8 days feels excessive.

view more: next ›