This seems to be the crux of the issue:

After CBC Toronto contacted TD this week, it offered to issue a new cheque with the condition George sign an indemnity agreement, which means he would be held liable for the money if the original cheque is ever found and cashed by someone else.

George says he declined, and instead offered to sign an agreement that says he'd be liable for $150,000. He says he isn't comfortable with the risk of having to repay the full amount. He also says he's done nothing wrong so shouldn't be the one on the hook.

So it seems that this offer has been made, but on the condition that if the original cheque is ever found and cashed Kavaratzis would be on the hook for it. Kavaratzis contends that that's not fair as he wasn't the one who lost the original.

The problem is that it's a bank draft, not a cheque. The whole idea of a bank draft is that it's guaranteed by the bank, so it can't be unilaterally cancelled after it's been issued. It's why you only accept a bank draft when selling a used car; once you have the bank draft, the other party cannot cancel it. The funds have already been removed from their account and are being held in trust by the bank.

It's a sticky situation. TD doesn't want to be on the hook for $300K should the original draft be deposited, but they can't cancel their obligation to that bank draft unless it is surrendered to them.

Meanwhile, Canada Post doesn't insure mail to the tune of $300K. They would have needed to buy separate insurance ahead of mailing the draft.

I don't see how this can be resolved at this point, even with media attention. $300K of cash should not be sent in the mail without adequate insurance.

Essentially, how would this story be different if they were literally shipping a box of cash by registered mail? I think it's pretty clear that that's a very risky thing to do.