References:  3 SCR 377, 117 DLR (4th) 161,  9 WWR 609, 97 BCLR (2d) 1, 16 BLR (2d) 1, 171 NR 245, 22 CCLT (2d) 1, 49 BCAC 1, 57 CPR (3d) 1, 5 ETR (2d) 1,  CarswellBC 438, AZ-94111096, JE 94-1560,  SCJ No 84 (QL),  ACS no 84, 50 ACWS (3d) 469, 80 WAC 1, 95 DTC 5135
Coram: La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
Supreme Court of Canada – Fiduciary duty — Non-disclosure — Damages — Financial adviser — Client insisting that adviser not be involved in promoting — Adviser not disclosing involvement in projects — Client investing in projects suggested by adviser — Ultimate decision as to whether or not to invest that of client — Substantial losses incurred during period of economic downturn — Whether or not fiduciary duty on part of adviser — If so, calculation of damages.
Contracts — Contract for independent services — Breach by failure to disclose — Calculation of damages.
La Forest J, giving the judgment of the majority, drew the distinction between fiduciary relationships and commercial interactions governed by the common law, the former being characterised by one party’s duty to act in the other’s best interests, and often by power on the one hand and dependency on the other, whereas the common law generally respected the pursuit of self-interest. The proper approach to damages for breach of a fiduciary duty was said to be restitutionary. On that basis, the majority of the court concluded that the claimant was entitled to be compensated for the loss sustained on investments which he had made on the advice of a fiduciary who had failed to disclose a conflict of interest, notwithstanding that the loss had resulted from an unforeseen general economic downturn.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Cadbury Schweppes -v- FBI Foods ( 1 SCR 142, Canlii, 1999 CanLII 705 (SCC), 85 ACWS (3d) 166, 191 WAC 161,  SCJ No 6 (QL), JE 99-317, AZ-99111005, 83 CPR (3d) 289, 235 NR 30, 117 BCAC 161, 42 BLR (2d) 159, 59 BCLR (3d) 1, 167 DLR (4th) 577)
Supreme Court of Canada – Commercial law – Confidential information – Breach of confidence – -Remedies – Manufacturer using confidential information obtained under licensing agreement to manufacture competing product – Whether permanent injunction . .
- Cited – AIB Group (UK) Plc -v- Mark Redler & Co Solicitors SC (Bailii,  UKSC 58,  3 WLR 1367,  WLR(D) 466, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0052, SC, SC Summary)
The court was asked as to the remedy available to the appellant bank against the respondent, a firm of solicitors, for breach of the solicitors’ custodial duties in respect of money entrusted to them for the purpose of completing a loan which was to . .
- Approved – Pilmer -v- Duke Group Ltd ((2001) 207 CLR 165,  HCA 31, Austlii)
High Court of Australia – Trusts – Express trust – Money received by firm of solicitors to be held for a specific purpose and in accordance with specific conditions – Misapplication of funds by firm – Breach of express trust – Liability of firm as . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 05-Nov-15 Ref: 554204