In Hodgkinson V

Multiple Choice

In Hodgkinson v. Simms, an accountant advised a client to invest in a real estate development while also acting for the developers. What did the Supreme Court of Canada find?

A) The presence of a financial risk was the identifying feature of a fiduciary relationship and, in this case, imposed the fiduciary duty.
B) The presence of a financial risk was the identifying feature of a fiduciary relationship but, in this case, did not impose a fiduciary duty.
C) The presence of loyalty, trust, and confidence were identifying features of a fiduciary relationship and, in this case, imposed the fiduciary duty.
D) A fiduciary relationship could not arise in circumstances where an investor acted of his own accord.
E) A fiduciary relationship could not arise in commercial circumstances, such as those found in this case.