What are the implications of the duty to warn of Trustees of a Trustee?

Froese v. Montreal Trust Company of Canada, supra, discusses the duty to warn of Trustees and contains passages which looked at in isolation are breathtaking in their ramifications. But when one does what the law demands ― when one looks at the facts of the case and the limited situation that confronted the court ― the case becomes nothing more than an application of established principle to a particular body of evidence. Apart from all else that might be said about why Froese v. Montreal Trust Company of Canada, supra, has no application to the case at bar, is the fact that the problem that the beneficiaries in that case were unaware of put the plan itself "at risk" (paragraph 60) and could not be recognized for what it was, and remedial action taken, absent the Trustees of that very plan, in effect, running up a flag. Nothing like that or analogous to that situation obtains in the case at bar.

In my respectful view, the case at bar falls wholly without Froese v. Montreal Trust Company of Canada, supra. It follows that the plaintiff's case on this branch of the analysis ― a claim for "breach of trust and a breach of fiduciary duty" ― falls to the ground.