Canada: Canadian Securities Class Actions Year In Review

2013: A Year Of Contrasts

2013 was marked by contrasting approaches as motions judges grappled with complex preliminary matters that arose in securities class actions. Issues of jurisdiction and competing forums were at the fore and cases involving proposed global classes of plaintiffs, duplicative cross-border actions and parallel regulatory proceedings were all noteworthy trends in 2013. The outcomes in these decisions suggest that more appellate guidance is necessary to settle the governing legal principles and provide certainty for public issuers and other defendants facing potential exposure to securities class actions in Canada.

Ten new securities class actions were filed in Canada in 2013; eight of these were filed in Ontario. According to trends data compiled by NERA Economic Consulting, this matches the number of actions filed in 2012 and brings the total number of pending actions in Canada to 54. These existing securities class actions represent more than C$19-billion in total claims.

It is also noteworthy that five of the nine Canadian-domiciled companies that were the subject of a new U.S. securities class action in 2013 are also the subject of a parallel action commenced in Canada; a proportion which NERA has noted is consistent with recent filings trends since 2006.

Additionally, the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently released its much anticipated decision in the trilogy of cases considering the application of the statutory limitation period on the commencement of secondary market claims which was heard in May 2013. The Court of Appeal overturned its own 2012 decision on the subject in Sharma v. Timminco Limited. The decision demonstrates that even appellate determinations do not always provide certainty.

KAYNES AND FACEBOOK DECISIONS: CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO JURISDICTION

Two decisions released in 2013 suggest that Ontario and Quebec may be taking divergent approaches to jurisdiction over foreign issuers.

In 2013, in Kaynes v. BP, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined for the first time that the statutory cause of action created by Part XXIII.1 is a "statutory tort" that, if committed in Ontario, will create a presumption that Ontario courts have jurisdiction over the dispute. The common shares of the defendant issuer in Kaynes trade exclusively over the London and Frankfurt Stock Exchanges. However, depository receipts trade over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and, for a brief period of time ending in August 2008, a small number of depository receipts also traded over the Toronto Stock Exchange. The defendant ceased to be a reporting issuer in Canada in January 2009.

The motions judge concluded that the fact that practically all of the securities at issue, including the depository receipts (ADRs) purchased by the proposed representative plaintiff, were acquired over a foreign exchange was insufficient to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction. In other words, Ontario courts may assume jurisdiction over the claims of Canadian-resident investors even when they purchase securities of a foreign issuer over a foreign exchange. The motions judge reasoned that the statutory tort is committed where the investment decision is made. The motions judge was not influenced by the fact that the representative plaintiff and other members of the proposed class had purchased ADRs on the NYSE and were entitled to participate in parallel proceedings in the U.S. Notably, the decision in Kaynes contrasts starkly with the approach being taken by U.S. courts following the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.which is to decline jurisdiction over claims arising from transactions that occurred on exchanges outside of the U.S. See our October 2013 Blakes Bulletin: Will Recent Decision "Open the Floodgates" to Securities Class Actions Against Foreign Issuers?for more information.

Although the Kaynes decision is under appeal, its reasoning suggests that Ontario courts may be taking an expansive attitude to jurisdiction in securities class actions. If upheld, Kaynes could have significant implications for public companies that are not reporting issuers in Ontario (or other Canadian provinces) because it increases the likelihood that they may nonetheless be subject to Canadian secondary market liability regimes. A decision not to be a public issuer in Ontario (or to cease being a public issuer in Ontario) may do little if anything to protect against liability under Part XXIII.1. It also increases the likelihood that issuers will face duplicative proceedings in different jurisdictions over the same secondary market transactions.

In September 2013, the Québec Superior Court declined jurisdiction over a class action brought on behalf of a proposed class of Quebec investors against a public issuer and other defendants in connection with an initial public offering. In Mouaikel c. Facebook, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that damages were suffered in Quebec on the basis that no harmful activity or event occurred in the province. The mere fact that the investors may have suffered losses that were recorded in Quebec was not sufficient to establish that the damages were suffered in the province.

In Facebook, none of the defendants were residents of Quebec, nor had any of the events giving rise to the allegations in the claim taken place in the province. The defendant issuer was not a reporting issuer under the Quebec Securities Act (QSA), nor had it distributed securities in Quebec. In declining jurisdiction, the court noted that the shares at issue were bought and sold either in New York or California.

The outcome contrasts sharply with the Ontario court's determination in Kaynes. It will be interesting to see how courts in the various provinces approach questions of jurisdiction over securities class actions as the law in this area develops.

FISCHER AND IMAX DECISIONS: WHEN WILL SETTLEMENTS BRING CERTAINTY?

In December 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the analysis a court must follow in determining whether a class action, as opposed to another dispute resolution process, will be considered the preferable procedure for resolving class members' claims. In its decision in AIC Limited v. Fischer, the Supreme Court determined that the settlement of Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) proceedings, which included the payment of restitution by several mutual fund managers to investors, did not insulate the fund managers from a securities class action brought on behalf of that same class of investors. See our December 2013 Blakes Bulletin: Supreme Court: Class Action is "Preferable Procedure" Notwithstanding Settlement with the OSCfor further information.

Canada has seen a significant increase over the past decade in "follow on" class actions initiated against defendants who have reached settlements with regulatory bodies. The Fischer case arose from an investigation conducted by the OSC as to whether the fund managers had taken reasonable steps to protect the funds from harm that could arise from frequent trading market timing. The OSC entered into settlement agreements with the fund managers which included payment in the amount of C$205.6-million to investors. The settlement agreements included factual admissions which were made "without prejudice" to the defendants in "any civil or other proceedings which may be brought." Following approval of the settlements by the OSC, investors initiated a class action against the fund managers advancing allegations about the same conduct that was the subject of the settlements.

The Supreme Court, in applying the test for certification, held that a class proceeding, when compared to the OSC process, was "preferable from the point of view of providing access to justice." It noted that the OSC's primary function is regulatory, as opposed to remedial or punitive. The Supreme Court also considered the results of the regulatory proceeding and concluded that the proceeding had provided little or no basis for investor participation, and it was not possible to determine how the OSC had arrived at the settlement amounts. It concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated that barriers to access to justice remained after the resolution of the OSC proceedings and that the proposed class action was the preferable procedure for addressing their claims.

The Supreme Court's decision in Fischer may have significant consequences for securities class actions that involve parallel regulatory proceedings. By requiring courts to scrutinize these proceedings and other alternate procedures to determine whether they offer sufficient procedural rights to claimants, and by confirming that a regulatory settlement will not necessarily preclude the possibility of a "follow on" class action, the Supreme Court has arguably introduced greater uncertainty for defendants considering settlement with a regulator.

While the Fischer decision may be discouraging for defendants seeking to achieve finality through regulatory settlements, a more encouraging message has been delivered for defendants settling parallel claims in cross-border scenarios.

In March 2013, in Silver v. IMAX, the Ontario Superior Court partially decertified a "global" securities class action as a result of the settlement of a U.S. proceeding that would resolve some class members' claims. See our March 2013 Blakes Bulletin: U.S. Settlement Reduces Global Class in Ontario Securities Class Actionfor additional information. Parallel U.S. and Canadian proceedings were commenced in 2006 against IMAX and other defendants in which it was alleged that the defendants made misrepresentations in the company's financial reports. IMAX is a Canadian-based public issuer and its shares are dual-listed on the TSX and NASDAQ exchanges. In 2009, the court granted the Ontario action leave to proceed under Part XXIII.1, and the action was certified as a class proceeding. The court certified a global class of IMAX investors that included purchasers of securities on both the TSX and NASDAQ exchanges, reasoning that the conduct of the defendants had a real and substantial connection to Ontario; in particular, because IMAX is a reporting issuer in Ontario and its shares are listed on the TSX. Meanwhile, in 2012, the U.S. court conditionally approved a settlement agreement in the U.S. action affecting only those purchasers who acquired their securities over the NASDAQ exchange. The U.S. court's order was conditional upon an order from the Ontario court amending the class proceeding to exclude those persons entitled to participate in the U.S. settlement.

The defendants moved, against the opposition of Ontario class counsel, for the requisite order, which was granted. The Ontario court concluded that keeping the NASDAQ purchasers in the Ontario class would not promote access to justice or be "preferable" for the NASDAQ purchasers who would lose the benefit of the U.S. settlement if the order was not granted. The decision had the effect of removing approximately 85 per cent of the class members from the Ontario action and limiting the class to the remaining 15 per cent of investors who purchased their securities on the TSX.

As the first decision to consider the effect of the settlement of a parallel U.S. secondary market class action on a class proceeding commenced under Part XXIII.1, IMAX provides an example of how Canadian courts may approach the settlement of securities class actions in cross-border scenarios. The decision suggests that even when a global class of investors is certified in Canada, it may be possible to narrow the class at a subsequent point in time. The decision also introduces a measure of certainty for defendants who achieve partial settlements in cross-border claims involving overlapping classes. Even when a global settlement that finally resolves claims on both sides of the border cannot be achieved, it may be possible to obtain the benefits of a U.S. settlement through an order narrowing the Canadian class.

As the IMAX decision was released prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Fischer, it will be interesting to see whether the analysis in Fischer plays a role in future considerations as to whether foreign settlements affecting Canadian class members constitute preferable procedures.

THERATECHNOLOGIES AND GREEN DECISIONS: THE STANDARD FOR OBTAINING LEAVE TO PROCEED

Several courts across the country contributed to the growing body of judicial commentary regarding the standard for obtaining leave to proceed with a statutory claim for secondary market misrepresentation. A 2013 case from the Québec Court of Appeal and another from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, both of which focus primarily on other issues, demonstrate how the standard for obtaining leave was interpreted in 2013.

In July 2013, the Québec Court of Appeal considered for the first time whether a right of appeal is available from a decision granting leave to pursue a secondary market misrepresentation class action under the QSA. As in other provinces, a class action based on the statutory secondary market liability regime requires that the plaintiff obtain leave of the court under the QSA as well as certification as a class action. In Theratechnologies Inc. c. 121851 Canada Inc., the Québec Court of Appeal clearly stated that the certification process and the leave application, although procedurally linked, are distinct and that the decision granting leave under the QSA can be appealed with leave of the Court of Appeal, while no appeal is available from a certification decision in Quebec. See our July 2013 Blakes Bulletin: Statutory Secondary Market Misrepresentation Claims: Quebec Court of Appeal's First Decision for further information.

The Québec Court of Appeal also took the opportunity in Theratechnologies to consider the test for granting leave under the QSA. Following the trend developed in British Columbia, the Court of Appeal confirmed that this leave test imposes a higher threshold than the test for certification of a class action. The test for authorization articulated by the Quebec Court of Appeal requires real and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reasonable possibility of the plaintiff's success. In February 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Québec Court of Appeal's decision.

Following a May 2013 hearing, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned its own decision in Timminco regarding the limitation period set out in Part XXIII.1 of the OSA. In Timminco, the Court of Appeal for Ontario interpreted section 138.14 of the OSA to provide that no action can be commenced under Part XXIII.1 if leave has not been obtained within three years of the date of the alleged misrepresentation. In a trilogy of appeals that were heard together – Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Silver v. IMAX, and Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc. – a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal held that court's own prior determination in Timminco was wrong. The five-judge panel held that the commencement of an action in which the requisite elements of the statutory cause of action under Part XXIII.1 are set out is sufficient to stop limitations periods from running. The five-member panel relied on public policy reasons and a different interpretation of the Class Proceedings Act and the Securities Act than had been relied upon by the panel in Timminco when it reached the prior conclusion that an order granting leave must be obtained by the plaintiff under Part XXIII.1 before the statutory limitation period will be suspended.

The Court of Appeal also considered the test for granting leave under the OSA and commented that the "reasonable possibility" of success standard for granting leave under the OSA is the same standard as is applied in assessing whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action in the certification test under section 5(1)(a) of the CPA. The court recognized, however, that the evidentiary records informing the leave and certification tests will be quite different.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
30 Oct 2019, Other, Toronto, Canada

The materials on the Blakes Business Class website are provided for informational purposes only. Accessing this information does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions