If there is no clear agency between the parties, can the parties be considered fiduciary?

It follows that I accept the argument that even if there is not a clear agency, there must be a finding that there is a fiduciary relationship. I find comfort in making this ruling from the judgment of Dickson, J. in Guerin v. The Queen 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 at 384: ... where by statute, agreement, or perhaps by unilateral undertaking, one party has an obligation to act for the benefit of another, and that obligation carries with it a discretionary power, the party thus empowered becomes a fiduciary. Equity will then supervise the relationship by holding him to the fiduciary’s strict standard of conduct. It is sometimes said that the nature of fiduciary relationships is both established and exhausted by the standard categories of agent, trust, partner, director, and the like. I do not agree. It is the nature of the relationship, not the specific category of actor involved that gives rise to the fiduciary duty. The categories of fiduciary, like those of negligence, should not be considered closed.