Canada: Class Actions Against Investment Advisors? Don't Bet On It

Last Updated: July 15 2019
Article by Andrew Parley and Paul-Erik Veel

Class actions are common in the financial services sector. The relatively low bar for certification of such claims as class proceedings means that many such claims are certified. Yet certification is by no means automatic: where the litigation will not be significantly advanced through the resolution of common issues, courts will typically be reluctant to certify an action as a class proceeding.

Consistent with those general principles, plaintiffs have typically been relatively successful in certifying class proceedings against financial institutions where proceedings contain broad-based claims that an organization adopted an inappropriate policy that detrimentally affected class members in a uniform manner. By contrast, claims relating to negligent provision of individualized advice or services, such as negligence claims against investment brokers, will seldom be amenable to certification. The recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Fisher v Richardson GMP Limited shows the difficulty of certifying class actions against investment advisors, even when there is some element of commonality in the advisor’s alleged negligence.

By way of background, Fisher v Richardson GMP Limited was a proposed class proceeding brought by two sets of plaintiffs against Richardson GMP, Adam Woodward (a former investment advisor with Richardson GMP Limited), and Blair Pytak (the branch manager at the branch where Mr. Woodward worked). 

The claim at its core was a negligence claim against Woodward. Woodward was an investment adviser who worked at the Richardson GMP branch in its Calgary office from November 2013 until December 2015. He provided financial and wealth management advisor services to 526 households, consisting of 724 individual clients.

After Woodward left Richardson GMP, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (“IIROC”) issued a Notice of Hearing to Woodward in November 2017. IIROC had received complaints from 58 individual clients, and it ultimately proceeded against Woodward on seven of those 58. An IIROC hearing was held, and Woodward did not contest the allegations. The IIROC hearing panel found that Woodward had failed to use due diligence to learn essential facts about his clients in breach of his ‘KYC’ obligations, failed to provide suitable investment recommendations, and failed to ensure that these seven clients qualified for certain exemptions under securities law. The hearing panel also held that Woodward had applied a uniform investment strategy described as a “one size fits all strategy” to all seven clients without regard to any relevant factors.

The proposed representative plaintiffs then brought a proposed class proceeding against the defendants. The proposed consisted of all clients of Richardson GMP, excluding the named defendants, whose investments accounts were under the management and direction of Woodward during some or all of the period from July 30, 2012 up to and including May 20, 2016. The Statement of Claim advanced claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and vicarious liability.

Justice Campbell of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ultimately dismissed the motion to certify the action as a class proceeding. While the Court held that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and that there were 17 common issues, the Court held that there were two key impediments to certification of the action as a class proceeding. First, the court held that there was not an identifiable class of two or more persons within the meaning of s 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act. Second, the Court held that the class action was not a preferable procedure under s 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act.

With respect to the requirement that there be a viable class of two or more persons, the court held that the class definition was inappropriate. The court held that the high degree of variability among the members of the proposed class precluded the existence of a uniform identifiable class:

[52] Different clients likely would have had differing risk tolerances, objectives, and time horizons depending on their personal circumstances and the composition of their investment portfolios. In addition, some clients may have purchased or sold securities based on information or advice received from sources other than Woodward and the WAM Advisors.
[53] These facts are essential to the nature, scope, and extent of the duty each Defendant owed to members of the Proposed Class. The result is that the suitability claims are personal to each client and this factual matrix makes identification of the class complicated and problematic.
[54] The Proposed Class is a highly variable group of individuals with different factual circumstances and backgrounds who may be owed different duties and who may have suffered different losses for different reasons. For example, the duty to advise, inform and warn that applies to an inexperienced investor is considerably higher than that applicable to a more sophisticated investor. Thus, the underlying facts for each of the Proposed Class will be critical.
[55] In summary, the claims of the Proposed Class involve diverse experiences that cannot be meaningfully reconciled in a unifying class definition that would give rise to a common duty and standard of care. The Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class definition fails to relate to a single, uniform experience. The mere fact that the proposed class definition identifies a group of individuals or involves the same defendant is not enough. The Action alleges many different causes of action that affect many clients in varying degrees and in substantively different ways. As such, the requisite duty and standard of care owed in the circumstances and any breach of that duty or contract cannot be resolved on a class basis.


The Court also held that the preferable procedure requirement was not met. The Court held that although the plaintiffs had identified a number of common issues, the common issues that would have been certified would not have meaningfully advanced the litigation. Rather, the most significant issues in the litigation were whether the defendants breached their respective duties to the plaintiffs, and whether damages were caused by the defendants’ breach. The court held that these were individual issues that could not be resolved in a common issues trial. Central to the Court’s conclusion on this was the notion that the content of the standard of care for an investment advisor was an individual issue that depend on the circumstances of the particular client:

[74] The applicable standard of care, which determines the scope of a duty and the expected conduct flowing therefrom, would require individual determination and perhaps expert evidence. As such, a detailed fact-finding examination of each client’s purchase of a security in the context of their individual circumstances and dealings with Woodward and the WAM Advisors would be necessary. The same holds true with respect to any duty to warn or inform, as the scope and content of such a duty is defined with reference to the nature of the personal relationship between the investment advisor and client and to that client’s personal circumstances.
[75] Numerous cases confirm that determining the appropriate standard of care in investment advice litigation depends on individual circumstances and requires a detailed examination of the relationship between the client and the investment advisor, the facts at the time the advice was given and the nature and type of investment product purchased or sold: Young Estate v RBC Dominion Securities, [2008] OJ No 5418 at para 182; Transpacific Sales Ltd v Sprott Securities Ltd, 2003 CanLII 27136 (ON CA), [2003] 67 OR (3d) 368 (CA) at para 33. The relationship between a broker and a client is on a spectrum that ranges from the broker acting as a mere agent or “order-taker” who simply executes the client’s instructions to a full trust or fiduciary relationship in which the broker purchases and sells securities on behalf of the client in a discretionary account: Junko v Canaccord Capital, 2012 ONSC 6966 (CanLII) at para 50. This results in a spectrum of applicable duties, from relatively minimal obligations to execute orders and act honestly up to fiduciary obligations: Vipond v AGF Private Investment Management, 2012 ONSC 7068 (CanLII) at para 184. The standard of care applicable to an investment advisor-client relationship is a question of fact and the scope of the duties owed flows not from the relationship in the abstract, but from the facts of each individual case.


Interestingly, the Court held that a class action would not be the preferable procedure, despite having rejected the alternative resolution mechanisms that were suggested by the defendants. Specifically, the defendants argued that one or both of Richardson GMP’s internal complaints process, as well as complaints to the Ombudsman Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) would be preferable procedures. While the court considered each of these processes, it rejected each of them as a preferable procedure.

With respect to Richardson GMP’s complaint process, the Court held that while the system promoted judicial economy, it would not promote access to justice or behaviour modification. The Court noted that the complaint process provided limited procedural protection to investors who had suffered a loss. The Court further noted that there was no obligation to conclude that process through an offer of financial compensation. Finally, Richardson GMP’s complaint process did not encourage behaviour modification as it was meant to encourage private settlement. 

With respect to OBSI, the Court held that OSBI had limited powers and financial jurisdiction with no ability to compel a brokerage to comply with its recommendations. In particular, OBSI’s remedies were limited to naming and shaming, with no ability to provide restitution to affected individuals.

The certification decision in Fisher v Richardson GMP Limited is informative in a number of respects.

First, the Court’s decision confirms that cases against investment advisors for the provision of allegedly negligent investment advice will generally not be amenable to certification as class proceedings. This is so even where, as here, the gravamen of the alleged wrong is that the investment advisor adopted a uniform investment strategy for all clients without consideration of their individual circumstances. While such a uniform approach by the advisor might appear at first glance to yield a common issue, the difficulty for plaintiffs in such cases is that they still require consideration as to the individual circumstances to decide whether that uniform approach fell below the standard of care in light of each particular client’s circumstances.

Second, and more generally, the decision reaffirms the principle that claims involving professional advice and services that are intended to be tailored to particular clients will typically be difficult to certify. While in some cases, a particular style of advice may be clearly wrong in all circumstances, the suitability of the particular advice will generally depend upon the client being advised. Where the suitability of even uniform advice varies from individual to individual within the class, it will be difficult for plaintiffs to persuade courts to certify such actions as class proceedings.

Finally, this decision is a good reminder of the principle that in order to successfully oppose certification on preferable procedure grounds, the defendant need not show that there is another, better procedure for resolution of the common issues. Rather, if the resolution on the common issues will leave class members in essentially the same spot they were in before the resolution of the common issues, this is sufficient to find that a procedure is not a preferable procedure.

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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
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