Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co.

Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co.

The jury found that the appellant did not rely on the respondent to discover and disclose facts necessary for informed instructions; that lack of reliance negated the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and the Court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Citation
[1975] 1 SCR 39
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Joseph Varga; Respondent / Defendant: F.H. Deacon & Company Limited; Third Party: Robert DuDomaine
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 1973
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (civil, Agency) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment by Supreme Court Affirming Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.
Legal Topics
Duty to Advise, Reliance, Existence of Fiduciary Relationship, Damages
Source Language
English
Agency Fiduciary Duty Securities/stockbroker Client Relationship Duty to Advise Reliance Existence of Fiduciary Relationship Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Varga

Appellant / Plaintiff

F.H. Deacon & Company Limited

Respondent / Defendant

Robert DuDomaine

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (civil, Agency) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment by Supreme Court Affirming Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fiduciary relationship existed between the stockbroker and client
  2. 2 Whether the broker had a duty to discover and disclose facts enabling the client to give informed instructions
  3. 3 Whether the appellant relied on the respondent to discover and disclose such facts

Ratio Decidendi

The jury found that the appellant did not rely on the respondent to discover and disclose facts necessary for informed instructions; that lack of reliance negated the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and the Court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Affirmation of Court of Appeal judgment