|
Fiduciary - Remedies. Paddy-Cannon v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Paddy-Cannon v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here from findings that "Canada [was] liable to the respondents for breach of fiduciary duty (both sui generis and ad hoc) and for negligence, and granted declaratory relief to that effect".
Here the court considers breach of fiduciary duty remedies:[127] I would not disturb the trial judge’s finding that Katherine and Canada are jointly and severally liable for the “abuse” award. First, while not explicit it appears as though the trial judge considered Canada liable for this due to its breach of fiduciary duty. The trial judge, noting that the focus was to achieve a just result, did not separate the damages in tort from compensation in equity. Her analysis of “abuse” speaks to both negligence and the breach of fiduciary duty. When assessing compensation that flows from the breach of fiduciary duty, psychological harm does not necessarily need to be reasonably foreseeable, and given the equitable nature of compensation, the principles of causation and remoteness apply only to the extent necessary to reach a just and fair result, and subject to any policy concerns: Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co., 1991 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534, at pp. 552 and 556, per McLachlin J. (as she then was); Waxman v. Waxman (2004), 2004 CanLII 39040 (ON CA), 44 B.L.R. (3d) 165 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 662.
|
