Marlin Investments Inc. v. Moldovan

Marlin Investments Inc. v. Moldovan

The advisors breached their duty to 'know the client' by failing to make reasonable inquiries about the client's age, financial resources and suitability for a high‑risk, capital‑intensive options program; damages properly accounted for both gains and losses from the linked trading strategy to restore the plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCCA 364
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Marlin Investments Inc.; Respondent/defendant: Traian Moldovan; Respondent/defendant: Robert Holmes; Respondent/defendant: Canaccord Genuity Corporation
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (civil Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed in part: respondents liable in negligence but fault apportioned 80% respondents / 20% appellant.
Legal Topics
Know Your Client, Suitability of Investments, Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment and Offsets, Vicarious Liability, Apportionment of Fault
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Securities/investment Advisory Law Civil Procedure Appeal Know Your Client Suitability of Investments Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment and Offsets +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlin Investments Inc.

Appellant/plaintiff

Traian Moldovan

Respondent/defendant

Robert Holmes

Respondent/defendant

Canaccord Genuity Corporation

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (civil Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether investment advisors breached the duty to 'know your client' and assess suitability
  2. 2 Whether the Options Program was negligently designed or operated
  3. 3 Whether gains realized prior to the loss period should be offset when assessing damages

Ratio Decidendi

The advisors breached their duty to 'know the client' by failing to make reasonable inquiries about the client's age, financial resources and suitability for a high‑risk, capital‑intensive options program; damages properly accounted for both gains and losses from the linked trading strategy to restore the plaintiff to its original position; plaintiff was contributorily negligent and fault is apportioned 80% to the defendants and 20% to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed in part: respondents liable in negligence but fault apportioned 80% respondents / 20% appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross‑appeal allowed in part