Law360 Canada ( November 14, 2022, 8:54 AM EST) -- Appeal by Rosowsky from trial judge’s refusal to consider whether Trustees’ discretion was fettered by the Hudye Group Trust, and cross-appeal by Hudye Group on grounds that the trial judge erred in law in his assessment of existence and scope of fiduciary obligations owed by Rosowsky. The Hudye Group began as a family farming business in Saskatchewan. The Hudye Group transferred its files to James Rosowsky Professional Law Corporation (JRPLC) on a fee for service basis. A retainer agreement between Hudye and JRPLC provided for an hourly billing rate. Hudye Group began exploring strategies for exiting from the agricultural industry. Rosowsky was heavily involved in these plans, advising on structure and preparing draft agreements. Rosowsky, while on the initial retainer agreement with the Hudye Group, negotiated and drafted several agreements that later became contentious. Hudye Group commenced an action claiming Rosowsky breached his fiduciary obligations. Rosowsky and JRPLC counterclaimed for several forms of relief. The trial judge found the General Counsel Agreement (GCA) reflected a hybrid relationship, part legal counsel and part business joint venture. Rosowsky was to be paid a salary for his legal services and the equity component was intended to provide incentive and reward for contributions going beyond delivery of legal services....