The Court rejected the suggestion that CRAE had actively misled DMR concerning the worth of its tenements.
The Court agreed that CRAE remained silent about certain significant information concerning CRAE's own
tenement area. It was a significant question as to what duties CRAE'was under, given that it was in joint venture with DMR in
respect of one of the tenement areas. Did that joint venture create an obligation on CRAE to disclose everything it
knew? The Court said no. The Court said that the fiduciary duties were defined by the terms of the farm-in
agreement between DMR and CRAE. When the Court examined the disclosure obligations within the confines of
the contract, it held that CRAE had not breached those terms.