The Fallons held themselves out as financial planners offering professional advice and acting in the best interests of the investors. The investors provided funds, usually in the form of certified cheques made out to a law firm or trust company, to the Fallons or one of their employees, and some time later the investors would receive legal documents to sign. The investors rarely if ever met with a lawyer or a representative of the trust company. The investors also paid a fee to Falloncrest. In many instances, at the end of the term of the mortgage the investors gave instructions to the Fallons to "reinvest" the funds in other mortgages. On these occasions the investors dealt only with the Fallons or their employees. In the circumstances we are of the view that there was some evidence upon which an opinion could be formed that there was an agency relationship in the sense of "the employment of another person to execute or discharge some legal obligation, or achieve some legal result". [Fridman's Law of Agency, 5th ed. (1983) at page 10; also see: Kelly v. The Queen (1992), 1992 CanLII 62 (SCC), 14 C.R. (4th) 181 (S.C.C.)]
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire