The Court of Appeal for British Columbia rejected a disgruntled investor’s effort to revive a lawsuit against RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (RBC DS) and their former rep, which sought to argue that reps’ titles matter and that the courts were deceived.
In 2017, an investor attempted to sue RBC DS and the rep that provided them with investment advice, alleging negligence and breach of contract that resulted in the value of their investments declining from $500,000 in 2006 to $367,722.92 by 2015. Following a 16-day trial, in 2021, that action was dismissed — and, in 2023, an appeal of that decision failed too.
After the appeal was rejected, the investor filed a new action, which argued that the original case was dismissed based on alleged “fraud” — namely, that their rep was registered as a “dealing representative,” and not as an “advising representative.”
“They take the position that in characterizing himself as capable of giving financial advice, [their former rep] acted fraudulently,” the court noted.
In early 2024, the Supreme Court of B.C. rejected the new suit.
Again, the investor appealed, arguing that the original 2017 case should be stayed because the final judgment in that case is “vitiated by fraud” — and that the 2023 action should be allowed to continue because the 2017 action was “vitiated by fraud.”
Now, the appeal court has rejected that argument too, saying that while an allegation that a rep wasn’t properly registered could theoretically be the basis of regulatory enforcement, the allegation “has no connection to the trial of the 2017 action.”
“In particular, it does not suggest that the court was misled in the course of that action or that the judgment was obtained by fraud,” it said.
“The trial judgments in the 2017 action were thorough reviews of the evidence, with a view to determining whether the defendants’ advice or practices failed to meet the standard of care of the reasonable financial adviser or amounted to breaches of contract,” the appeal court noted.
“Nothing in the appellants’ new allegations about improper registration can affect the validity of the judgments in the 2017 action,” it said. “The chambers judge rightly struck out the 2023 action insofar as it sought to set aside the 2017 action.”
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals.