Glenn A. Urquhart

The appellant appealed a decision regarding damages for wrongful dismissal, specifically concerning the significance of pensions in determining reasonable notice.

After leave to appeal was granted, the appellant died.

Subsequent legislation compelled the payment of a death benefit of $161,325, which approximated the trial court's award for the loss of pension benefits.

Given these radically altered circumstances, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal without commenting on the substantive legal issues raised in the courts below.

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 appellant contractor successfully bid on a road building contract and entered into a contract with the province.

The contractor alleged it lost money due to errors in the specifications and construction drawings prepared by the respondent engineering firm.

The contractor sued the engineering firm and the individual engineers for negligent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the engineering firm owed a duty of care to the contractor, as the firm knew contractors would rely on its tender documents.

The contract between the contractor and the province did not negate this duty.

However, the Court dismissed the claim against the individual engineers, finding that merely affixing a professional seal to the documents was insufficient to establish a duty of care.

Hydro called for tenders to erect transmission towers and string lines.

The tender documents stated the right-of-way would be cleared by others.

Checo's representative inspected the site and assumed further clearing would occur.

The parties entered into a contract incorporating the tender documents.

No further clearing occurred, causing Checo difficulties.

Checo sued for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a plaintiff may sue concurrently in tort and contract unless the contract limits or negates the right to sue in tort.

The contract did not exclude Hydro's liability for negligent misrepresentation, nor did it negate its contractual duty to clear the right-of-way.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed in part, with damages remitted to the trial division for reassessment.