Fisher v Richardson GMP Limited, 2019 ABQB 450

The Plaintiffs were clients of RGMP who each bought and sold investment products through Woodward and other advisors. RGMP was a registered investment dealer that provided investment management and financial advisory services. Woodward was a registered dealing representative employed by RGMP. The Plaintiffs claimed that Woodward and advisors owed a duty of care and had a contractual obligation to them and the Proposed Class to manage their investment accounts in accordance with their and the Proposed Class’ instructions, true risk tolerances, and stated investment objectives. They brought a motion to certify a class action based on concurrent liability in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and vicarious liability to recover losses and damages allegedly resulting from financial investment decisions made following unsuitable and negligent investment advice, direction and strategies. The Defendants submitted that this was a very diverse group of clients serviced by at least three different investment advisors, including Woodward, and holding other investment products that varied in terms of investment risk and time horizons. They argued that the group had insufficient if any, commonality to form a proper identifiable class.
The Court was not satisfied that the proposed class definition established an “identifiable class of two or more persons”. Some issues were able to meet the commonality criterion, though the Plaintiffs were not able to satisfy the Court of all the requirements for a class action. The Plaintiffs’ application for certification was dismissed, and it was stated that they may proceed with the Action against the Defendants.