Peso Silver Mines Ltd v Cropper

Peso Silver Mines Ltd v Cropper
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: April 27, 28, 1966 ; Judgment: June 20, 1966
Citations	[1966] S.C.R. 673, 58. D.L.R. (2d) 1
Prior history	APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia [1]
Ruling	Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Holding
	A director must not make a profit out of property acquired by reason (and only by reason) of his relationship to the company of which he is a director.
Court Membership
Puisne Justices	Cartwright, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Hall JJ.
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by	Cartwright J.

Last updated May 05, 2020

Peso Silver Mines Ltd v Cropper, [1966] S.C.R. 673,^[2] is a leading Canadian case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the fiduciary duty of corporate directors, the boundaries of conflict of interest, and the type of damages that may be obtained in cases of wrongful dismissal.

Background

Dickson, a prospector, owned several mineral claims, one of which was contiguous to claims held by Peso Silver Mines. He offered to sell them to Peso, but its board of directors rejected the offer. Mr. Cropper, a managing director and member of the board, was approached later on by three other investors, and the four formed a private company to acquire the claims, and a public company later to take over, finance and develop them.

Some time later, Peso received an offer from another company to acquire a significant interest in it, and that offer was accepted. A term of the offer provided that the number of directors of the appellant should be increased to nine of whom five should be chosen by the new investor. At a meeting of the new board, Cropper, acting in compliance with a notice from the chairman that it was imperative that all officers of the company make full disclosure of their connection with other mining companies, disclosed his private interest in the companies developing the Dickson claims. However, at a subsequent meeting of the board he refused to comply with the chairman's request that he turn over his interest in them at cost. Thereupon a motion was passed rescinding Cropper's appointment as executive vice-president and as a member of the executive committee. He was asked to vacate the offices of the company and the chairman asked him to resign as a director. Cropper refused to resign as a director, but did so later, and his resignation was accepted.

In an action commenced by Peso, a declaration was claimed that the interests in the companies developing the Dickson claims acquired by the respondent were held by him in trust for the appellant, and it was asked that he be required to deliver the shares to the appellant or to account for the proceeds thereof. Cropper counter-claimed for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The courts below

At trial the action was dismissed and the counter-claim was allowed in the amount of $10,000. On appeal by Cropper to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was dismissed in so far as Peso's action was concerned. However, the Court of Appeal reduced Cropper's damages from $10,000 to $6,500. An appeal and a cross-appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal were then brought to this Court.

At the Supreme Court of Canada

In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal. In doing so, it applied the reasoning of Lord Russell of Killowen in Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver that it had adopted in previous Canadian jurisprudence, and found that Cropper was not acting in his capacity as a director of the appellant but as an individual member of the public. As Cartwright J. noted, Regal could be summarized in the following observation by Lord Russell:

In the result, I am of opinion that the directors standing in a fiduciary relationship to Regal in regard to the exercise of their powers as directors, and having obtained these shares by reason and only by reason of the fact that they were directors of Regal and in the course of the execution of that office, are accountable for the profits which they have made out of them.

Cartwright J. then went on to hold:

On the facts of the case at bar I find it impossible to say that the respondent obtained the interests he holds in Cross Bow and Mayo by reason of the fact that he was a director of the appellant and in the course of the execution of that office. When Dickson, at Dr. Aho's suggestion, offered his claims to the appellant it was the duty of the respondent as director to take part in the decision of the board as to whether that offer should be accepted or rejected. At that point he stood in a fiduciary relationship to the appellant. There are affirmative findings of fact that he and his co-directors acted in good faith, solely in the interests of the appellant and with sound business reasons in rejecting the offer. There is no suggestion in the evidence that the offer to the appellant was accompanied by any confidential information unavailable to any prospective purchaser or that the respondent as director had access to any such information by reason of his office. When, later, Dr. Aho approached the appellant it was not in his capacity as a director of the appellant, but as an individual member of the public whom Dr. Aho was seeking to interest as a co-adventurer.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

On the question of the amount of damages that was raised in the cross-appeal, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that "the claim being founded on breach of contract the damages cannot be increased by reason of the circumstances of dismissal whether in respect of the respondent's wounded feelings or the prejudicial effect upon his reputation and chances of finding other employment." Therefore, the cross-appeal was also dismissed.

Aftermath

The ruling expanded on a hypothetical case that had been given in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in its deliberations in Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver , that had been endorsed by Lord Denning MR in his judgment in Boardman v Phipps . This was the reasoning endorsed by Cartwright J. in Peso.

Peso was subsequently distinguished by the SCC in Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley , which revolved around significantly different facts. Peso and Aero Service continue to illustrate the boundaries of conflict of interest that directors of Canadian companies must keep in mind in their deliberations.^[3]

Related Research Articles

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver[1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage of an opportunity that the corporation would otherwise be interested in but was unable to take advantage. However the breach could have been resolved by ratification by the shareholders, which those involved neglected to do.

Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley, [1974] SCR 592, is a leading civil case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on corporate director and officer liability.

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.

Bray v Ford [1896] AC 44 is an English defamation law case, which also concerns some principles of conflict of interest relevant for trusts and company law.

<i>Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw</i>

Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts. In the field of company law, it is known primarily to stand for the principle that damages may be sought for breach of contract by a director even though a contract may de facto constrain the exercise of powers to sack people found in the company's constitution.

Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd is an Australian company law case concerning the adequacy of consideration paid for shares, as well as on the questions of duty of care and fiduciary duty owed by experts retained in such matters.

Canadian company law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November. The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA. The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages. An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies. This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities. The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation. On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable. The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.

Smit v Abrahams is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 15, 1994, with judgment handed down on May 16. Botha AR, EM Grosskopf AR, Kumleben AR, Van Den Heever AR and Mahomed Wn AR were the judges.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Automotive Tooling Systems (Pty) Ltd v Wilkens & others was an important case in South African labour law, in which the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa confirmed the principle that a restraint of trade would be considered unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and thus unenforceable, if it does not protect some legally recognisable interest of the employer and merely seeks to exclude or eliminate competition.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Honda Canada Inc v Keays2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that:

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.

Zapata Corp v. Maldonado 430 A 2d 779 is a US corporate law case, concerning the derivative suits in Delaware.

Wilson v Alharayeri2017 SCC 39 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada which significantly extends the application of the oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act to include non-corporate parties.

Delahunty v Player and Willis (Ireland) Ltd, [2006] 1 IR 304; [2006] IESC 21 was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court gave a woman permission to take action for damages against two major tobacco companies in what was the first step in the battle against 'Big tobacco'.

References

↑ (1965), 54 W.W.R. 329, 56 D.L.R. (2d) 117
↑ Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
↑ Michael Varabioff (2004-02-18). "CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES: SOLVING THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY BEING A DIRECTOR OF MORE THAN ONE JUNIOR MINING COMPANY" (PDF). Axium Law Group. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2012-05-10.