Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants' action against CIBC was summarily dismissed as statute barred under Alberta's ten-year ultimate limitation period in the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12.

• A $232,000 cheque was fraudulently altered by the appellants' business partner in July 2012, redirecting funds to a different numbered company's bank account at CIBC.

• The appellants claim they were unaware of the fraud until 2021 when accounting documents were returned by the Canada Revenue Agency, but commenced their action on November 18, 2022 — approximately one month after the limitation period (plus a 75-day Ministerial Order extension) expired on October 20, 2022.

• Section 4(1) of the Limitations Act, which allows suspension of the limitation period during fraudulent concealment, was found inapplicable because CIBC did not alter the cheque nor deliberately conceal the fact and effects of the altered cheque.

• Alberta's ten-year ultimate limitation period applied rather than Ontario's fifteen-year period, as the cheque was written, altered, and deposited in Alberta and the action was commenced in Alberta.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's interpretation and application of the Limitations Act and finding that the appellants had not demonstrated any misrepresentations were made by CIBC.

The fraud and the cheque

On July 26, 2012, Sylwester Walczak wrote a cheque for $232,000 on behalf of Regal Homes Inc., payable to 078919 AB Ltd, for the purpose of investing in a five-year GIC. His then business partner altered the name of the payee to 978919 AB Ltd and deposited the cheque into a different numbered company's bank account at CIBC, which was solely controlled by the business partner. The appellants claim they were unaware of the alteration on the cheque until 2021, when the appellants' accounting documents (including the cancelled cheque) were returned by the Canada Revenue Agency following an investigation.

The commencement of the action and the limitation issue

The appellants' action against CIBC was commenced on November 18, 2022, more than ten years after the altered cheque was deposited on July 27, 2012. The action was summarily dismissed by an applications judge on the grounds that it was statute barred by section 3(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, which prohibits the bringing of a claim more than ten years after the claim arose. Although the limitation period was extended by 75 days by a Ministerial Order in 2020, the ten-year limitation period plus the additional 75 days expired on October 20, 2022, approximately one month before the action was commenced.

The lower court decisions

A chambers judge of the Court of King's Bench upheld the summary dismissal in Walczak v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2024 ABKB 373. The chambers judge concluded that the claim arose for the purpose of the ten-year limitation period when the wrongful or harmful conduct happened — not when parties became aware of the conduct — applying the reasoning in Stuffco v Stuffco, 2006 ABCA 317 at para 40. She acknowledged that the ultimate limitation period is a matter of public policy, characterizing it as an absolute cut-off date that applies to all claims in Alberta without exception, even if the claim has merit. The chambers judge further considered whether the exception under section 4(1) of the Limitations Act could suspend the limitation period but found that CIBC did not alter the cheque, nor did CIBC deliberately conceal the fact and effects of the altered cheque, and neither was CIBC the business partner's agent or servant. She concluded that section 4(1) did not suspend the ultimate limitation period.

The appeal and arguments raised

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal of Alberta, submitting that summary judgment should not have been granted because the chambers judge erred in her interpretation and application of the law. They also alleged that misrepresentations were made by CIBC at the application. The appellants claimed that they were under a disability for some period of time. They additionally referred to various provisions in the Bank Act, SC 1991, c 46, the Alberta Evidence Act, RSA 2000, c A-18, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, SC 2015, c 13, s 2, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, SC 2000, c 17.

The ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal, in a memorandum of judgment filed at Calgary, Alberta on February 10, 2026 by Justices Strekaf and Ho, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the chambers judge correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Limitations Act. It confirmed that the Alberta ten-year ultimate limitation period, rather than the Ontario fifteen-year ultimate limitation period, applies as the cheque was written, altered, and deposited in Alberta and the action was commenced in Alberta. The appellants' claim that they were under a disability for some period of time did not assist them, as this is not a relevant consideration with respect to the ultimate limitation period in section 3(1)(b). The appellants had not demonstrated that any misrepresentations were made by the respondent to the chambers judge, and none of the other statutes cited by the appellants were found to be relevant to the issues on the appeal. The Court was satisfied that this was an appropriate case for summary dismissal. CIBC was the successful party, and the appellants' claim involving $232,000 in fraudulently diverted funds was barred. No costs award or specific monetary judgment was expressly mentioned in the decision.