The appellant entrusted the management of a large sum of money to the respondent securities dealer, who mismanaged the portfolio by making speculative investments on margin contrary to the appellant's retirement objectives.
The trial judge found the respondents entirely liable for the resulting losses.
The Court of Appeal reduced the damages, finding that the appellant had taken control of the account and failed to mitigate its damages by not closing it earlier.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge's finding that the mandate remained discretionary and that the appellant, lacking financial expertise, acted reasonably in not intervening earlier.
Damages were awarded for the full period of mismanagement.
