Christina’s counsel relied on the decision in Base v. Hadley, 2006 NWTSC 4, as support for the proposition that claims of breach of fiduciary duty are not limited to cases where it is alleged that the defendant had a sinister or improper motive. In that case the plaintiff sued her doctor for performing a tubal ligation on her, allegedly without her consent. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the actions based on negligence and battery, because they were instituted outside the limitation period, but allowed the action based on breach of fiduciary duty to proceed. The court found that Norberg did not limit the scope of the fiduciary obligations and that the scope of the duty will depend on the particular facts of the case. The fact that the claim raised allegations based on negligence and battery did not preclude a claim also based on breach of fiduciary duty.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.