The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed an investor’s lawsuit against discount brokerage TD Direct Investing, a division of TD Waterhouse Canada Inc., ruling that the investor was responsible for his own trading losses.

The allegations made against TD by Frank Oktay Turkson, a self-described “small day trader”, included breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, fraud, wilful concealment and breach of privacy.

According to court’s decision published on Monday, Turkson sought more than $50 million in damages, including aggravated, punitive, and exemplary damages. By the time of the hearing, Turkson indicated he was seeking punitive damages of approximately $340 million, the decision says.

TD sought to dismiss the suit, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable claim, or that it should be resolved through a summary trial, rather than a full hearing. The court agreed that it was suitable for a summary trial, and proceeded to rule in favour of TD.

Among other things, the court found that Turkson did not receive any advice from TD, and that he accepted sole responsibility for his trading activity in various account agreements with the firm. The court also ruled that the various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, concealment, fraud, and breach of trust, are unfounded.

Turkson, 69, is a retired investment banker, architect and engineer, the decision says, and professed to have significant experience in the stock market.

“Mr. Turkson purported to be an experienced investor who understood the significant risks in the market and that he had sufficient capital to withstand the vagaries (and potential downturn) of the market if his investment decisions did not pan out. He went into this situation with his eyes open and was either well-aware or should have been aware of TD Waterhouse’s rights under the various agreements,” the court said in its ruling.

“When the market turned against him, he sought to place the consequences of his poor investment decisions on TD Waterhouse. He willingly engaged in an inherently speculative and risky management strategy with what seems to be the last of his family savings … he has only himself to blame,” the court concluded, in dismissing the action.