Kelowna company learns e-transferring the wrong person doesn’t mean you’ve lost the money

A recent B.C. small claims court decision has shown that e-transferring the wrong person cash doesn't necessarily mean you'll be out of pocket.

A Kelowna-based talent agency found out the hard way to always double and triple check a person's email address after it accidentally e-transferred almost $1,000 to the wrong person.

According to a Dec. 15, Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, the Book It Talent Agency sent four separate transactions to Tyler Dreger totalling $949.

However, while the talent agency thought it was sending money to its client Tyler Dreger, it was accidentally sending money to another Tyler Dreger with almost exactly the same email address.

It was only several months after the payments had been sent that the client contacted the talent agency asking about why he hadn't been paid?

READ MORE: B.C. Tribunal rules ballet lessons via Zoom not good enough reason for a refund

When the Book It Talent Agency realized its mistake it asked the non-client Tyler Dreger for the money back. However, he refused to give the money back saying it wasn't his mistake.

"I agree that the (talent agency) have not proved that Mr. Dreger was at fault for receiving the money," the Tribunal ruled. "However, the (talent agency) do not need to prove this to establish unjust enrichment."

The small claims court case focuses on the legal term "unjust enrichment" and the plaintiffs need to prove there was "no valid reason" for "enriching" a third party.

"Although Mr. Dreger was not responsible for receiving the money, he was enriched by the payments that were not intended for him. Under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, Mr. Dreger is obligated to return the money that was mistakenly sent to him even though he was not at fault," the decision reads.

The non-client Tyler Dreger argues his bank had told him not to do anything and said the talent agency could recover the money from their bank or from insurance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the argument as hearsay and ruled the non-client Tyler Dreger was unjustly enriched and therefore has to pay back $949 plus the $125 Civil Resolution Tribunal fee to the tune of $1,076.

Ultimately, refusing to give back the money that wasn't his, cost the non-client Tyler Dreger $125, plus a few dollars in interest.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.