Following "E.D.G. v. Hammer", Canadian law has held that school boards, although they have a fiduciary duty to their students, do not guarantee the safety of their students from the acts of their employees. The scope of that fiduciary duty is narrow, restricted to a board acting with disloyalty, in bad faith, or in a conflict of interest to its students, which causes them injury. This paper takes the position that the scope of that duty should include cases where a school board's policy allows students to use their own cars to drive fellow students to school-sponsored functions. "E.D.G. v. Hammer," (2003) 2 SCR 459. Hammer followed from a line of cases which developed the law: "M. B. v. British Columbia," (2003) 2 SCR 477; "K. L. B. v. British Columbia," (2003) 2 SCR 403. See also Dickinson (2004).