Equitable Compensation for Breach by Fact-Based Fiduciaries: Tentative Thoughts on Clarifying Remedial Goals

Authors

  • Jeff Berryman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/alr1475

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Canada has purported to distinguish the approach to quantifying equitable compensation from that applied to the quantification of damages in common law for breach of contract or tort. In particular, the rules associated with causation and remoteness and the application of evidential presumptions has dominated this discourse. In this comment the author suggests that these distinctions are adding to conceptual muddling of the fiduciary relationship and that it would be better for the court to embrace totally the sophisticated analytical rules of the common law rather than recreate new rules in equity. Further, he argues that the distinctive features of the fiduciary relationship would be better recognized through the application of punitive damages rather than the distortion of compensation principles.

Downloads

Published

1999-04-01

Issue

Vol 37, No 1: Special Issue: Symposium on Restitution

Section

Articles

License

For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:

  1. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
  2. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
  3. Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
  4. Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.

To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.