I therefore do not find a basis in law for the broad proposition [RBC] D[ominion] S[ecurities] asserts, that because the I[nvestment] A[dvisor]s were key to the functioning of the branch, they were for that reason alone in a fiduciary relationship with DS. To characterize as a fiduciary every employee who is necessary to an operation and who is difficult to replace would be, in my view, to extend the reach of the fiduciary relationship beyond its proper scope as contemplated in Frame v. Smith, supra.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.