• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Capital Projects Energy Funds & Finance Mining View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management ESG Strategy and Solutions Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events
New Energy Economy Series Business Law Talks Podcast Economic Outlook
ESG & the CIO Subscribe
People
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
About
Offices
News
Careers
Insights
Law Students
Events
Search
Alumni
Payments
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

Plaintiffs Denied Leave in the Latest Decision under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act

November 12, 2013

In Bayens v Kinross Gold Corp, released November 5, 2013, Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the plaintiffs in a putative class action leave to advance a statutory claim for securities market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. In denying leave, Justice Perell also dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to certify the statutory claim along with a common law claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The Kinross decision represents a welcome victory for potential defendants across the province, and one of the few instances since the 2006 enactment of Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act that a motion for leave under this part has been denied.  Justice Perell denied leave on the basis that he was not satisfied on the evidence that there exists a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at trial in favour of the plaintiffs.  In arriving at this decision, he examined the legislative history pertaining to the leave test and thoroughly canvassed the relevant case law addressing the threshold that must be met to successfully obtain leave.  Justice Perell's decision may serve to reassure potential defendants that the judiciary views the test for leave as more than a mere bump in the road.  Rather, as defendants have consistently argued, the test ought to be a genuine screening mechanism, capable of weeding out unmeritorious claims.  While this decision arguably and, many will say, appropriately elevates the test, appellate guidance on the issue remains necessary to further define the test's precise parameters.

Notably, in deciding the matter of certification, Justice Perell went on to bootstrap the common law negligent misrepresentation claim to the statutory claim, and he denied certification of the entire action on the basis of the plaintiffs' failure to obtain leave under the Securities Act.  Justice Perell held that, with the failure of the statutory claim to be granted leave, it necessarily followed that both the statutory claim and the common law negligence claim failed to satisfy the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Specifically, in light of the plaintiffs' failure to obtain leave, Justice Perell held that the statutory claim could not be certified as there was no such cause of action.  More importantly, with respect to the common law claim, Justice Perell held that, having the same evidentiary foundation as the statutory claim, there was no basis in fact for three of the five certification criteria (class definition, common issues and preferable procedure), and thus the common law claim could not proceed.

Given that the merits-based test for leave under the Securities Act is evidence-based and more onerous than the procedural test for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, Justice Perell's conclusion concerning the common law claim may be met with a chorus of calls of overreaching from the plaintiff's bar, particularly given that the common practice is to bring statutory and common law claims concurrently.  It is no surprise, then, that the plaintiffs in this case intend to file their notices of appeal by the end of the month.  Next will be the Court of Appeal's decision on whether leave to appeal Justice Perell's decision will be granted.

Download PDF

Authors

  • Joseph N. Blinick Joseph N. Blinick, Partner
  • Alan P. Gardner Alan P. Gardner, Partner

Fall 2022 Economic Outlook: Managing Risks and Taking Action

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

Land Rich, Cash Poor: The Impacts of the PPCLA and [...]

February 06, 2023
       

Blog

What Canada's New Forced Labour Reporting Law (Bill [...]

February 06, 2023
       

Blog

Alberta Court Confirms Exclusive Jurisdiction of Labour [...]

February 03, 2023
       

Blog

Competition Bureau Seeks Feedback on Enforcement Guidance [...]

February 03, 2023
       

Blog

New CSA Exemption Relating to Proxy Requirements For [...]

February 03, 2023
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
  • History
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2023. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones