Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co.
- Citation
- [1975] 1 SCR 39
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 November 1973
- 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
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 November 1973
- 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
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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
- No interference with the jury's damages award
02
Material facts
Parties
Joseph Varga
Appellant / Plaintiff Counsel: R.N. Starr Q.C.F.H. Deacon & Company Limited
Respondent / Defendant Counsel: P.B.C. Pepper Q.C.; D.A. PeppiattRobert DuDomaine
Third Party03
Procedural history
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
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a fiduciary relationship existed between the stockbroker and client
- 02
Whether the broker had a duty to discover and disclose facts enabling the client to give informed instructions
- 03
Whether the appellant relied on the respondent to discover and disclose such facts
- 04
Whether the damages awarded by the jury should be interfered with
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that the stockbroker occupied a fiduciary position requiring discovery and disclosure of material facts and that he relied on the broker to advise him, entitling him to damages for the losses suffered.
- Respondent
- Respondent denied a fiduciary relationship and argued that the appellant did not rely on the broker to discover and disclose facts; the jury found no reliance and the respondent contended the damages award should stand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 39
A fiduciary relationship requires, among other things, reliance by the principal on the fiduciary to discover and disclose facts necessary for informed instructions.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 39
A stockbroker-client relationship does not automatically create fiduciary duties beyond those established by the parties and proved reliance.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Affirmation of Court of Appeal judgment
- No interference with the jury's damages award
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 5 November 1973
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 5 November 1973
Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1973-11-05 Report [1975] 1 SCR 39 Judges Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Spence, Wishart Flett; Laskin, Bora On appeal from Ontario Subjects Agency Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Varga v. F.H. Deacon & Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 39 Date: 1973-11-05 Joseph Varga (Plaintiff) Appellant; and F.H. Deacon & Company Limited (Defendant) Respondent; and Robert DuDomaine Third Party. 1973: October 23; 1973: November 5. Present: Abbott, Martland, Judson, Spence and Laskin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Agency—Fiduciary relationship—Stockbroker and client—Duty to advise client. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] allowing an appeal from Haines J. with a jury. Appeal dismissed. R.N. Starr, Q.C., for the appellant. P.B.C. Pepper, Q.C., and D.A. Peppiatt, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by ABBOTT J.—In our opinion, the finding of the jury that the appellant did not rely on the respondent or the third party to discover and make disclosure of facts necessary to enable him to give informed instructions, negatives in the circumstances of this case, the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the appellant and the respondent. We are not prepared to interfere with the finding of the jury as to the amount of the damages. We would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitor for the appellant: R.N. Starr, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondent: Peppiatt & Frost, Toronto. [1] [1973] O.R. 233.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.