Justice Sutherland also found that neither of the assistants had been delegated discretionary power by the lawyer and that thus neither the second nor the third elements required for a finding of fiduciary duty existed. Justice Sutherland further found that neither of the real estate assistants had provided any undertaking, express or implied, to act in the best interests of the lawyer and instead that they were merely independent contractors employed to perform real estate transactional work that was to be monitored by the lawyer. Yu, one of the legal assistant defendants that she sought direction from the lawyer related to the unusual features of the real estate transactions she was involved in. In Justice Sutherland’s matter, he accepted the evidence of Ms. Further it must be possible to identify a person or class of persons who are vulnerable to the alleged fiduciary and it must be shown that the alleged fiduciary’s power may affect the legal or substantial practical interests of the beneficiary. There must be an undertaking, express or implied, by the alleged fiduciary to act in the best interests of the beneficiary. An ‘ad hoc’ fiduciary duty can now be found by the Court in less traditional relationships based on the circumstances of any specific case.įor an ad hoc fiduciary relationship to exist, Justice Sutherland noted that three elements must be demonstrated. ![]() Justice Sutherland noted that recent case law had expanded fiduciary duties beyond the traditional fiduciary relationships such as solicitor-client, doctor-patient and trustee-beneficiary. The case is interesting, not merely because of the facts underlying the cause of action, but also because of the discussion in the decision released Jof “ad hoc fiduciary relationships” and the emerging tort of “equitable fraud”. ![]() The assistants had been involved in preparing documentation related to many of the transactions complained of at the Law Society hearing in 2012. Li et al., 2020 ONSC 4299, in Newmarket, Ont., involving a Richmond Hill lawyer who was suing two of his real estate assistants for damages related to his suspension by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) in 2012.Īt trial, the lawyer alleged that two of his former real estate assistants committed fraud, breached fiduciary duties they had to him and conspired against him causing him damages related to lost income and reputation he suffered as a result of the Law Society suspension. Justice Sutherland recently heard an interesting trial, Wong v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |