What is the difference between a fiduciary obligation and a tort law duty of care?

There is a second difficulty with the trial judge’s fiduciary analysis. Although the trial judge relied on many of the findings described above to support her conclusion that the Loba Parties owed duties of care to the plaintiffs prior to the date on which they joined the Loba Plan – duties that she found attracted a “high” standard of care – she held that these duties were not impressed with fiduciary obligations. This conclusion is at odds with the applicable jurisprudence regarding the distinctions between the fiduciary obligation and the ordinary tort law duty of care. While these duties may sometimes overlap, they remain conceptually and functionally unique: see Norberg v. Wynrib, 1992 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226, at p. 272.