Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 304
indicium of its existence...It is, in fact, the “golden thread” that unites such related causes of action
as breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, unconscionability and negligent misrepresentation”.
The Court identified relevant indicators for finding the existence of a fiduciary relationship such as
the availability for the unilateral exercise of some discretion or power.
[1152] However, I am unable to conclude that the Defendant was acting in a fiduciary relationship
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
in her dealings with the Plaintiffs regarding the supply of timber for the Watson Lake mill.
[1153] The legal test is clear, that fiduciary must act in the interests of the beneficiary to the
exclusion of its own interests. That obligation cannot be imposed on the Defendant on the facts of
this case. The Defendant is mandated to manage the forest resources for the benefit of many, not
only for the Plaintiffs.
[1154] The Plaintiffs do not claim that they had an exclusive right to an adequate timber supply;
their claim is quite specific and limited to a supply of 200,000 m 3 per year. The requirement that a
fiduciary must act for the benefit of the Plaintiffs would create a conflict with the discharge of the
Defendant’s public law duties in general, an issue that was addressed by Mr. Justice Rothstein (as
he then was) in Fairford First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 2 F.C. 48 (T.D.), at
para. 67, as follows:
It would place the government in a conflict between its responsibility
to act in the public interest and its fiduciary duty of loyalty to the
Indian band to the exclusion of other interests. In the absence of
legislative or constitutional provisions to the contrary, the law of
fiduciary duties, in the Aboriginal context, cannot be interpreted to