High Court Ruling on Bank Account Closure
On Tuesday, High Court Judge Nicolas Pierre ruled against Gobin Harbhajan, a former candidate for the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, regarding his challenge against Scotiabank. The case stemmed from the bank’s decision to close his account, which was reportedly in good standing.
The judge noted that the termination of the account was permissible under the Personal Financial Services Agreement (PFSA). This agreement allows banks to close accounts or cancel services without cause, as long as they provided a notice period of 30 days. The ruling stated, “This is an unconditional contractual right and does not require decision-makers to make any judgments or assessments.”
However, Judge Pierre did advocate for a legislative review that might lead to the appointment of an independent official to investigate complaints related to account closures. He emphasized the importance of access to banking in today’s digital environment, suggesting that the purely contractual relationship between banks and customers, which currently shields banks from common law liability, is not ideal.
The judge pointed out that in other regions, similar issues have been addressed by the establishment of a financial services ombudsperson. Such roles are designed to evaluate whether banks act fairly and reasonably in account closure cases, rather than relying solely on public law principles.
Moreover, Justice Pierre clarified that Harbhajan could not successfully argue that the bank breached procedural fairness, as the closure decision couldn’t be evaluated under public law. He explained that this obligation arises within public law contexts, notably because banks do not manage government programs or other functions tied to official duties.
The court also dismissed a request to declare WIN as distinct from its individual members, noting that no evidence was presented to confirm sanctions imposed on the party or its candidates. Relying on past judgments, the judge reiterated that unincorporated political parties lack legal personality.
Scotiabank confirmed that Harbhajan’s account was suspended in a letter dated August 7, 2025, and denied specifying any “violations” as the basis for this action. Harbhajan claims that this termination damaged his reputation and was linked to his political affiliation with WIN. Still, the bank maintained that it had not failed to comply with any regulations.
Justice Pierre highlighted that while Harbhajan demonstrated his account suspension and association with WIN, he did not sufficiently prove that his political beliefs led to the bank’s actions. “His assertion that all accounts of WIN members were closed is unsubstantiated,” she remarked, emphasizing that mere claims aren’t enough.
Furthermore, the judge rejected Harbhajan’s allegations concerning breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act (AMLCFT). She argued that such obligations primarily lie with governmental and supervisory entities. Additionally, she noted that Harbhajan failed to identify any specific legal provisions granting a private right of action for claimed non-compliance, stating that breaches of statutory duty don’t automatically allow for private lawsuits unless explicitly stated by law.
