How has the court interpreted vulnerability in the context of a fiduciary duty of trust in an investment relationship?

Hodgkinson, supra, deals with this point in that the investor/plaintiff retained the ultimate discretion or power in relation to the investment. La Forest J., however, pointed out that “where reliance on the investment advice is found, a fiduciary duty has been affirmed without regard to the level of sophistication of the client, or the client's ultimate discretion to accept or reject the professional's advice” (at p. 418). In my view, the decision of the court in Hodgkinson, supra, highlights the fact that the concept of vulnerability has undergone some change since the judgement of the court in Frame v. Smith, supra. I find La Forest J.’s comments relating to vulnerability, at pp. 412-13, where he held that the degree of vulnerability “does not depend on some hypothetical ability to protect one’s self from harm, but rather on the parties’ reasonable expectations”, particularly relevant to the instant case.