Dear Colleagues,

Without wishing to trespass onto other members' territory, I have seen that the Supreme Court of Canada has just published its judgment in Galambos v. Perez, 2009 SCC 48: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc48/2009scc48.html. It is a case on fiduciary duty, which may be of some interest. The Court, through Cromwell J, takes the opportunity to clarify or restate when such fiduciary relationships may arise. The Court noted that

"the facts are unusual, if not unique. At the centre of the case are sizeable advances of cash — some $200,000 in total — made by Ms. Perez to her employer, the appellant law firm founded by Mr. Galambos.  Ms. Perez made these advances voluntarily, much on her initiative and often without informing Mr. Galambos beforehand.  When the firm was placed in receivership and Mr. Galambos went bankrupt, she found herself an unsecured creditor. She recovered nothing. With the necessary leave of the court (under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B‑3), she sued Mr. Galambos and the defunct firm for negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, no doubt in the hope that, as the trial judge observed, success in these claims might allow her to recover from the appellants’ professional liability insurance."

The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal for British Columbia and held that the claimant's claim for breach of ad hoc fiduciary duties failed. The Court of Appeal had "unduly extended the scope of fiduciary obligations". There are some interesting points, and the Supreme Court refers with approval to the work of at least two list members, Professors Smith and Weinrib.

Best wishes,

James

--

James Lee

Lecturer

Director of the LLB Programme

Birmingham Law School

University of Birmingham

Edgbaston

Birmingham

B15 2TT, United Kingdom

 

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629

E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk