MacRury v. Keybase Financial Group Inc.

MacRury v. Keybase Financial Group Inc.

Summary judgment was denied because the MFDA settlement admissions, while relevant and probative, do not resolve all material factual issues necessary to establish legal liability; the scope and standard of care for the advisor, allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, contributory negligence and vicarious liability are fact-specific and intertwined and therefore require a trial to make contested findings of fact.

Citation
2016 NSSC 159
Parties
Plaintiffs: Kenneth MacRury and Sheila Knowlton-MacRury; Defendant: Keybase Financial Group Inc.; Defendant: Global Maxfin Investments Inc.; Defendant: Joseph Daniel Laurie
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil: Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Summary judgment motion denied
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Regulatory Settlement Admissions, Suitability of Investment Advice, Vicarious Liability, Contributory Negligence, MFDA Disciplinary Settlement
Source Language
English
Negligence Contract Fiduciary Duty Securities/regulatory Compliance Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Regulatory Settlement Admissions Suitability of Investment Advice +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth MacRury and Sheila Knowlton-MacRury

Plaintiffs

Keybase Financial Group Inc.

Defendant

Global Maxfin Investments Inc.

Defendant

Joseph Daniel Laurie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions in an MFDA settlement bind the respondent in subsequent civil litigation
  2. 2 Whether there is any genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial under Rule 13.04
  3. 3 Scope and standard of care owed by an investment advisor to these clients

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was denied because the MFDA settlement admissions, while relevant and probative, do not resolve all material factual issues necessary to establish legal liability; the scope and standard of care for the advisor, allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, contributory negligence and vicarious liability are fact-specific and intertwined and therefore require a trial to make contested findings of fact.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment motion denied

Orders

  • Summary judgment motion on liability dismissed
  • Action to proceed to trial on all issues including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability and contributory negligence