UN TRIBUNAL DÉCLARE QUE LES NORMES DU SECTEUR N’IMPOSENT PAS D’OBLIGATION FIDUCIAIRE
La Cour divisionnaire, une division de la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario, a rejeté le 1er mars 2022 une requête pour autorisation d'exercer une action collective dans laquelle la partie requérante alléguait que deux conseillers en placement de la société International Capital Management inc., une société réglementée par l’ACFM, avaient contrevenu à l’obligation fiduciaire envers leurs clients. Se reporter à l’affaire Boal v. International Capital Management inc.
En anglais,
The decision of the majority stated: “I do not agree that that the use of the phrase ‘best interests of the client’ in itself creates a fiduciary duty relating to existing or potential material conflicts of interest for all clients of the advisor.” Further, they noted that “Imposing a common-law fiduciary standard based on the MFDA rules and by-laws or the FP Code of Ethics could have a significant impact on elements of the capital markets including those with restricted advice business models (like many mutual fund dealers), and could have significant negative effects on both investors and capital markets.”
It should also be noted that this case was decided on facts and regulatory standards that existed prior to the introduction of the Client Focused Reforms.