The appellants, a fertility doctor and her professional corporation, appealed the dismissal of their action against a former colleague for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment regarding a government funding application.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings.
The court upheld the trial judge's conclusions that no fiduciary duty existed due to the absence of an undertaking to act in the beneficiary's best interests, and that there was a juristic reason for any enrichment because the funding application was made honestly and in accordance with the parties' agreement at the time.
