What is the remedy for a breach of fiduciary duty that tainted with dishonesty?

A distinction has been drawn concerning the appropriate remedy for a breach of a fiduciary duty that is tainted with dishonesty, and one which is not. In Complin v. Beggs (1913), 4 W.W.R. 1081 [Manitoba Trial Division],Galt, J. at pp.1088-89, stated: - It may be the result of an honest but mistaken notion of one’s rights. It appears to me that there is and ought to be a wide distinction between the consequent liabilities. In the former case, where the agent has acted dishonestly, a principal is entitled not only to recover the profit received by the agent, but to deprive the agent of his ordinary commission. In the latter case the agent is liable to his principal for any profit received, but still is entitled to his commission.