What is the proper measure of damages for a claim for a breach of fiduciary duty?

Prior to Guerin, Anderson J. (as he then was) in Jacks v. Davis, supra, stated at p. 23: In my opinion, the proper measure of damages in respect of a claim for damages in a breach of a fiduciary duty is the same as in a claim for damages for fraud. I see no real distinction between the two claims. In the case of fraud, the defendant induces the plaintiff to part with his money on the basis of a material misrepresentation. In the case of a breach of a fiduciary duty, the plaintiff is induced to part with his money by reason of the failure of the defendant to disclose material facts, namely, misrepresentation by silence. In either case, the damages are not limited by what the parties may reasonably have contemplated.