• 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

Articles

Climate Change Initiatives: Selected Recent Changes and the Application of Existing Tax Principles to Clean Energy—Part 2

July 21, 2025
       

Articles

Tariff Tensions: Managing Risk Through Carefully Drafted Construction Contracts

July 21, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Sabrina Bandali spoke at the 71 Annual Natural Resources

July 17, 2025
       

Client Work

Canada Infrastructure Bank Closes C$1 Billion Financing to Support Montréal-Trudeau Transformation

July 16, 2025
       

In The News

John Manley on the CBC News Network

July 11, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Rethinking Cyber Risk in the Age of AI: What Boards Need to Know

July 08, 2025
       

Announcements

Eighteen Bennett Jones Lawyers Ranked in Lexpert's Special Edition on Health Sciences

July 02, 2025
       

Client Work

Bennett Jones Acts for Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited in Overturning C$228 Million Judgment

July 02, 2025
       

Announcements

Harinder Basra Appointed Calgary Managing Partner at Bennett Jones

July 01, 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