Galambos v Perez, its Critics, and the Equity-Certainty Paradox in Fiduciary Law

Abstract

This paper examines the merits of the current approach to identifying ad hoc fiduciary duties in Canada, which was exposited by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2009 Galambos v Perez decision. The indicia of fiduciary relationships expressed in Galambos, I argue, are sufficiently comprehensive and certain to overcome popular academic criticisms of the indicia-based ad hoc approach. Specifically, I will challenge the arguments of the contractarian scholar Anthony Duggan and the equity-focused scholar Leonard Rotman -- both of which argue, albeit from different ends of the academic spectrum, that ad hoc fiduciary duties should not be identified using indicia.