What is the current state of the law on breach of statutory duty?

Making the assumption above, the failure to negotiate might amount to a breach of a statutory duty, however, it does not amount to a cause of action. Dickson C.J. summarized the Canadian position on breach of statutory duty in The Queen v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, 1983 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1983] 1S.C.R. 205 at 227 where he succinctly stated: In sum I conclude that: 1. Civil consequences of breach of statute should be subsumed in the law of negligence. 2. The notion of a nominate tort of statutory breach giving a right to recovery merely on proof of breach and damages should be rejected, as should the view that unexcused breach constitutes negligence per se giving rise to absolute liability. 3. Proof of statutory breach, causative of damages, may be evidence of negligence. 4. The statutory formulation of the duty may afford a specific, and useful, standard of reasonable conduct. In light of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiffs cannot succeed on the basis of this allegation either as they have not pleaded the manner in which any breach of a statutory duty constituted negligence in this case. VI - Fiduciary Duty