What is the test for good faith in cheques?

Bank of Montreal v. Normandin [p. 592]: "regard to the facts of which the taker of such instruments had notice is most material in considering whether he took in good faith. If there be anything which excites the suspicion that there is something wrong in the transaction, the taker of the instrument is not acting in good faith if he shuts his eyes to the facts presented to him and puts the suspicions aside without further enquiry." I draw two conclusions from these passages that are crucial to this case. The first is that the total relationship between the parties must be considered. The second is that if, in the context of that total relationship, there are facts actually known to the person who becomes the holder of the cheque, which actually cause a suspicion to arise, or which should cause a suspicion to arise in any normal person in his occupation, and the suspicion is suppressed, in the first case, or not allowed to arise at all, in the second case, then unless the situation is one where the behaviour ought to be categorized as merely negligent, that is, an act of carelessness towards a person to whom a duty of care is owed, and not as dishonest, the suppression of the suspicion, or the failure to allow it to arise at all, through wholly inappropriate gullibility, will deny good faith.