In their dissent in Hodgkinson v. Simms, McLachlin J., as she then was, and Sopinka J. offered the following warning about applying too flexible a standard in determining whether a party owes a fiduciary duty. At ¶127, they wrote: The difficulty lies in determining what measure of confidence and trust are sufficient to give rise to a fiduciary obligation. An objective criterion must be found to identify this measure if the law is to permit people to conduct their affairs with some degree of certainty. … The vast disparity between the remedies for negligence and breach of contract – the usual remedies for ill-given advice – and those for breach of fiduciary obligation, impose a duty on the court to offer clear assistance to those concerned to stay in the former camp and not stray into the latter.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.