Volume 42 | Number 3 Summer 2007
V. Conclusion
The analysis of the academic literature and the comparative context suggest that developing a streamlined approach to amending the gatekeeper liability scheme in Canada, which comes closer to the U.S. and the U.K. models, is not desirable. Overall, the polycentric legal environment for gatekeeper liability in Canada appears to be developing in a manner that gives gatekeepers guidelines on how to perform their functions, as well as adequate reason to do so. This can be demonstrated by indexes such as the Rotman School of Management’s Board Shareholder Confidence Index, which found that governance scores, designed to reflect the degree to which elements of good governance are implemented by a company, have improved every year since 2003.211
In examining the existing Canadian model where the boundaries between law and professional practice are somewhat blurred and subsystems of liability that apply to various gatekeepers differ both from gatekeeper to gatekeeper and also geographically, it became apparent that participants in the market and other members of the public may not be aware of the extent of the existing corporate gatekeeper liability regime in Canada. Awareness of the liability scheme plays a key role in developing confidence in Canadian capital markets. Accordingly, a final recommendation is made with regards to the widespread dissemination and availability of papers that seek to map out the existing gatekeeper liability regime in Canada and situate it in the context of recent academic literature and reforms in comparable jurisdictions.
If you would like to submit a response to this article, please read our submission guidelines and submit your response here.
Footnotes
For complete footnote citations, download the PDF.