• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Private Equity Briefings Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights
Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 

The Fiduciary Explanation for Presumed Undue Influence

2012

Despite centuries of the common law more or less recognizing the distinction between actual and presumed undue influence, recent cases from the House of Lords and Supreme Court of Canada indicate a failure to appreciate the true nature of presumed undue influence and its connection to fiduciary law. As such, an appropriate legal test for presumed undue influence is still required. Through an examination and critique of leading case law and academia on the conventional fiduciary obligation, deferential trust, and the two types of undue influence, this article makes a case for the adoption of fiduciary influence as the appropriate test for deferential trust. The circumstances that can give rise to fiduciary influence are infinitely variable; however, courts must determine whether, on the facts, the trusted party acquired influence for the limited and defined purpose of acting in the trusting party's interest at the time of the impugned transaction. Published in Vol. 50, no. 1 of Alberta Law Review.

Key Contact

  • Marshall R. Haughey Marshall R. Haughey, Partner

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Related Expertise

  • Tax

Recent Posts

Client Work

Tether Investments Supports New Gold Focused Royalty Company Elemental Royalty Corp

September 05, 2025
       

In The News

Uranium Renaissance Beckons in Canada

September 05, 2025
       

Announcements

Sixteen Bennett Jones Lawyers Ranked in Lexpert's Global Mining Special Edition

September 03, 2025
       

In The News

Canada Digs for an Edge in Critical Minerals

September 03, 2025
       

In The News

How Mining M&A is Adapting and Accelerating in 2025

September 03, 2025
       

Announcements

Anu Nijhawan Elected Chair of CBA National Tax Section

September 02, 2025
       

Announcements

Natalia Iamundo Wins Mondaq Thought Leadership Award

August 28, 2025
       

Client Work

Bennett Jones Advises Osisko Development on US$650 Million Financing Package for Cariboo Gold Project

August 20, 2025
       

Announcements

Dominique Hussey, Melanie Teetaert and Cheryl Woodin Recognized in Benchmark's Top 100 Women in Litigation

August 14, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones