Earl Asher Cherniak

The appeal concerned whether an accountant providing tax planning and investment advice owed fiduciary duties to a client where the advisor fostered trust and reliance while failing to disclose a financial relationship with the developers of the recommended tax shelter investments.

The majority held that a fact-based fiduciary relationship arose because the client reasonably expected independent advice given solely in his best interests, and the undisclosed conflict breached both fiduciary and contractual duties.

The Court restored the trial judgment awarding restitutionary damages equal to the client's net losses, holding the breaching advisor bore the market risk once the client proved he would not have entered the investments but for the non-disclosure.

The dissent would have confined fiduciary duties to relationships of total dependency and would have limited contract damages because the market collapse, not the non-disclosure, caused the devaluation.

The Canadian Commercial Bank (CCB) faced a solvency crisis and received a $255 million advance from a support group consisting of governments and major banks.

When CCB was subsequently ordered to be wound up, the liquidator sought advice on whether the support group's claim for the advance should rank pari passu with other unsecured creditors or be postponed as a capital investment.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the advance was in substance a loan, not a capital investment, despite having some equity features like warrants.

The Court also held that the loan did not fall within the postponement provision of the Partnerships Act because the lenders were not receiving a share of the profits, but rather repayment of a fixed debt out of profits.

Finally, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of equitable subordination, finding no inequitable conduct by the support group.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which had struck down a reverse onus provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its recent decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. The Court held that while the requirement for the accused to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities restricts the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter, it is a justifiable limit under s. 1.

The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to dispose of the remaining grounds of appeal.

The respondent was seriously injured when he slipped and fell on the icy parking area of a rural farmhouse rented by the appellants.

The parking area had not been salted or sanded, which the appellants argued was consistent with local custom.

The respondent sued for damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The trial judge found the appellants liable, and the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants breached their statutory duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Act by doing nothing to make the premises reasonably safe.

The Court further held that the respondent's mere knowledge of the icy conditions did not mean he willingly assumed the legal risks under s. 4(1) of the Act, which preserves the strict volenti non fit injuria doctrine.

The appellants suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by an underinsured driver.

They sued their government-owned insurer for the shortfall, alleging the insurer failed to inform them about the availability of underinsured motorist coverage (UMC).

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a public insurer owes a duty of care to inform its customers of all available optional coverages, their purpose, and their cost.

The Court found the insurer breached this duty by providing inadequate and confusing information, and restored the trial judge's award of damages for the shortfall and costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The appellants challenged a provincial commission of inquiry into alleged dealings between named private individuals, a corporation, and public officials.

The majority held that, in pith and substance, the inquiry functioned as a substitute police investigation and preliminary inquiry into a specific Criminal Code offence, thereby intruding on Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law and criminal procedure under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The naming of private individuals, the close mirroring of s. 121 of the Criminal Code, and the inquiry's coercive powers were found cumulatively to render the Order in Council ultra vires.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal and did not decide the remaining Charter issues.

Appeal involving failed arm's length negotiations between mining companies over possible joint development of gold properties in the Hemlo area.

The respondent disclosed confidential geological information and its acquisition plans for an adjacent patented property during negotiations; the appellant then used that information to acquire the property for itself.

A majority held that the appellant breached a duty of confidence, and the Court upheld the constructive trust remedy requiring transfer of the property, subject to compensation for improvements.

The decision contains major reasons on the distinction between breach of confidence and fiduciary duty, and on the availability of constructive trust as a restitutionary remedy.

The appellants sought compensation for injurious affection after the respondent Minister acquired adjoining land and constructed a public highway.

No part of the appellants' land was taken, but they claimed damages for loss of prospect and privacy.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that to recover under the Expropriations Act, the damage must be actionable at common law.

The Court found that the loss of amenities, such as prospect and privacy, does not constitute an actionable nuisance, and the Minister's use of the land for a highway was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The sole surviving executor of an estate improperly loaned estate money to his own company and executed a debenture that was not registered.

After the executor died, the new administrators applied for late registration of the debenture under the Corporation Securities Registration Act.

However, a petition in bankruptcy had already been filed against the debtor company.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the executor's misconduct constituted 'sufficient cause' for late registration, the bankruptcy petition vested the company's assets in the trustee.

Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act did not operate to elevate the estate's unsecured claim to a secured claim after the bankruptcy commenced.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's husband, a police officer, was struck and killed by a vehicle while investigating an accident on a well-lit highway.

The trial judge found the driver solely responsible and awarded $195,000 in damages under the Fatal Accidents Act.

The Court of Appeal found the officer 25% contributorily negligent and reduced the damages by applying a fixed 7% discount rate based on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge's findings on liability and damages.

The Court clarified that the discount rate is a factual issue to be determined on the evidence in each case, not a fixed rule of law, and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment.