The appellant currency exchanger accepted stolen money orders and sought to recover their face value from the issuer, arguing it was a holder in due course of a bill of exchange.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding a money order is not a bill of exchange.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed the matter to trial, holding that the legal status of a money order is a commercially important issue that requires a full factual record and should not be decided on a summary judgment motion under the Simplified Procedure.
