canadian imperial bank of commerce appellant … · canadian imperial bank of commerce . appellant...
TRANSCRIPT
SCC File No.: 35807
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
APPELLANT (Respondent)
-and-
HOWARD GREEN AND ANNE BELL
RESPONDENTS (Appellants)
-and-
CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF INVESTOR RIGHTS, SHAREHOLDER ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, ONTARIO
SECURITIES COMMISSION and INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA
INTERVENERS
FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER SHAREHOLDER ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
(Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)
GROIA & COMPANY Professional Corporation ▪ Lawyers Wildeboer Dellelce Place 365 Bay Street, 11th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5H 2V1
Joseph Groia Bonnie Roberts Jones Tel: 416-203-2115 Fax: 416-203-9231 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Shareholder Association for Research and Education
SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 100- 340 Gilmour Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Marie-France Major Tel.: (613) 695-8855 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Ottawa Agents for Counsel for the Intervener, Shareholder Association for Research and Education
SCC File No.: 35807
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
APPELLANT (Respondent)
-and-
HOWARD GREEN AND ANNE BELL
RESPONDENTS (Appellants)
AND BETWEEN:
GERALD McCAUGHEY, TOM WOODS, BRIAN G. SHAW, and KEN KILGOUR
APPELLANTS (Respondents)
-and-
HOWARD GREEN AND ANNE BELL
RESPONDENTS (Appellants)
-and-
CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF INVESTOR RIGHTS, SHAREHOLDER ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, ONTARIO
SECURITIES COMMISSION and INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA
INTERVENERS
TORYS LLP Suite 3000, 79 Wellington Street West P.O. Box 270, Toronto Dominion Centre Toronto, ON M5K 1N2 Sheila R. Block James C. Tory Andrew Gray Crawford Smith Tel.: 416-865-7319 Fax : 416-865-7380 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce GOODMANS LLP 3400 – 333 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S7 Benjamin Zarnett David D. Conklin Tel: 416-597-4204 Fax: 416-979-1234 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants, Gerald McCaughey, Tom Woods, Brian G. Shaw and Ken Kilgour ROCHON, GENOVA LLP 121 Richmond Street West, Suite 900 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1 Joel P. Rochon Peter R. Jervis Remissa Hirji Sakie Tambakos Tel: 416-363-1867 Fax: 416-363-0263 Counsel for the Respondents, Howard Green and Anne Bell
MCMILLAN LLP 300 – 50 O’Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L2 David Debenham Tel: 613-232-7171 Fax: 613-231-3191 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP 1500-45 O’Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4 Sally Gomery Tel: 613-780-8604 Fax: 613-230-5459 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Appellants, Gerald McCaughey, Tom Woods, Brian G. Shaw and Ken Kilgour SUPREME ADVOCACY 100- 340 Gilmour Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Marie-France Major Tel.: (613) 695-8855 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for Respondents, Howard Green and Anne Bell
PALIARE ROLAND ROSENBERG ROTHSTEIN LLP 155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3H1 Margaret Waddell Denise Cooney Tel: 416-646-4329 Fax: 416-646-4301 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR Canada) ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION 20 Queen Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3S8 Anna Perschy Tel: 416-595-8782 Fax: 416-593-8321 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Ontario Securities Commission STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP 5300 Commerce Street West 199 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5L 1B9 Alan L.W. D’Silva Sinzianna R. Henning Tel: 416-869-5204 Fax: 416-947-0866 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Insurance Bureau of Canada
SUPREME ADVOCACY 100- 340 Gilmour Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Marie-France Major Tel.: (613) 695-8855 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR Canada) MICHAEL J. SOBKIN 331 Somerset Street West Ottawa, ON K2P 0J8 Tel: 613-282-1717 Fax: 613-288-2869 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Ontario Securities Commission STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP 1600 – 50 O’Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 Nicholas Peter McHaffie Tel: 613-566-546 Fax: 613-230-8877 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Insurance Bureau of Canada
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I – OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1
PART II – QUESTIONS AT ISSUE .................................................................................. 3
PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT .................................................................... 3
I. The Decision of the ONCA in Green Accords with the Legislative Intent of the OSA and the CPA to Promote Access to Justice, Encourage High Standards of Disclosure and Foster Investor Confidence .................................................................................... 3
A. The Purpose of s. 28 of the CPA ..................................................................... 3
B. The Purpose of Part XXIII.1 of the OSA ........................................................ 4
C. The ONCA was Correct to Interpret the CPA and the OSA as Companion Acts ................................................................................................................. 6
D. The ONCA in Green Correctly Took Notice of the Practical Realities of Class Actions .................................................................................................. 7
E. The ONCA in Green Correctly Interpreted the Leave Standard .................... 8
II. The Issues that were Addressed by the ONCA in Green are Not Moot ....................... 8
PARTS IV-V – Request for Permission to Present Oral Arguments ................................ 10
PART V – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... 11
PART VI – STATUTORY PROVISIONS ....................................................................... 13
Appendix “A” ................................................................................................................... 26
PART I – OVERVIEW
1. This appeal will have far reaching and long lasting effects on the capital markets of
Canada. The need for greater protection of the Canadian capital markets is clear. The ability of
Canadian institutional and retail investors to bring claims for secondary market
misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act 1 (“OSA”) and under
equivalent provisions in other provinces makes an important contribution to the protection of
those markets. It is respectfully submitted that this appeal should be dismissed in order to foster
and maintain investor confidence in Canadian capital markets.
2. The Shareholder Association for Research and Education (“SHARE”) is a non-profit
corporation that represents the interests of institutional investors across Canada. SHARE was
granted leave to intervene in this appeal by order of Gascon J., dated December 17, 2014. This
appeal raises important interpretive issues concerning the OSA, the Class Proceedings Act, 19922
(“CPA”) and how the two Acts should operate harmoniously to protect Canadian investors in the
Canadian capital markets. That is the focus of SHARE’s submissions.
3. SHARE respectfully submits that the five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario
(the “ONCA”) in Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce3 was correct to overturn the
decision it had previously reached in Sharma v. Timminco.4 In Timminco, a narrow approach to
statutory interpretation led the ONCA to a conclusion that undermined the legislative intent to
give Canadian investors protection under Part XXIII.1 of the OSA. The ONCA decision in Green
supports the unambiguous legislative intent to create a remedial cause of action for negligent
misrepresentation in the secondary capital markets that will, when used in conjunction with the
CPA, encourage fair and efficient capital markets in Canada and promote transparency in
corporate/investor relationships.
1 RSO 1990, c. S.5 (“OSA”). 2 SO 1992, c. 6 (“CPA”). 3 2014 ONCA 90 (“Green ONCA”) at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record. 4 2012 ONCA 107 (“Timminco”) at Tab 87 of the Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II.
2
4. In Green, at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Strathy J. described Timminco as
striking like a “thunderbolt.”5 The three cases jointly heard6 by the ONCA in Green were all
extant when Timminco was released. All three cases were adversely affected by the surprising
holding in Timminco that (1) a statutory claim based on Part XXIII.1 of the OSA would be barred
if leave to commence the action is not obtained within the three-year period established by s.
138.14 of the OSA, and (2) that s. 28 of the CPA does not suspend the running of the limitation
period in favour of class members until leave is obtained.7 The harsh outcome of Timminco
prompted Strathy J. to write that the case would have “important implications not only for this
action, but also for pending and future actions seeking leave to assert the statutory remedy for
misrepresentation in the secondary market.”8 In their attempts to interpret and apply Timminco
the judges in the three cases all reached different conclusions.
5. The unexpected holding in Timminco was that the cause of action in Part XXIII.1 of the
OSA, which is intended to provide a meaningful remedy for investors, was not subject to s. 28 of
the CPA, even though most claims under Part XXIII.1 would be brought as class actions. The
decision in Timminco turned on the ONCA’s restrictive interpretation of the word ‘assert’ in s.
28 of the CPA. The ONCA held that a representative plaintiff cannot ‘assert’ a claim before the
claim can be enforced, and that s. 28 of the CPA therefore does not apply to Part XXIII.1 of the
OSA. As a result, in the Ontario Superior Court decisions in Imax 9 and Celestica, 10 two
experienced class action judges resorted to common law equitable doctrines to avoid the unfair
and impractical effects of Timminco and allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with claims that would
otherwise have been statute-barred.
6. The narrow approach to statutory interpretation adopted by the ONCA in Timminco had
the effect of making it virtually impossible for investors to rely upon the cause of action in Part
XXIII.1 of the OSA and to benefit from the remedial objectives of the CPA. The decision in 5 2012 ONSC 3637 at para. 475 (“Green ONSC") at Tab 1B of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 1 of the Individual Appellants’ Record. 6 Ibid; Silver v. Imax Corp., 2012 ONSC 4881 (“Imax”) at Tab 89 of Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II; Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc., 2012 ONSC 6083 (“Celestica”) at Tab 93 of Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II. 7 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at paras. 13-14. 8 Green ONSC at Tab 1B of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 1 of the Individual Appellants’ Record at para. 475. 9 At Tab 89 of Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II. 10 At Tab 93 of Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II.
3
Timminco disregarded the clear legislative intent, undermined the confidence of Canadian
investors our securities market and was incorrect in law. The decision of the ONCA in Green to
revisit and overturn Timminco should be upheld by this Honourable Court.
PART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
7. SHARE intervenes on two issues:
ISSUE #1: Does the decision of the ONCA in Green accord with the legislative intent
of the OSA and the CPA to promote access to justice, encourage high standards of
disclosure and foster investor confidence?
ISSUE #2: Are the issues that were addressed by the ONCA in Green now moot?
PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
ISSUE #1: THE DECISION OF THE ONCA IN GREEN ACCORDS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE OSA AND THE CPA TO PROMOTE ACCESS TO JUSTICE, ENCOURAGE HIGH STANDARDS OF DISCLOSURE AND FOSTER INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
8. SHARE submits that in Green, the ONCA was correct to take notice of the procedural
realities involved in bringing a class action claim for misrepresentation in the secondary capital
markets pursuant to Part XXIII.1 of the OSA. The result of the decision in Timminco was that s.
28 of the CPA would not operate to suspend the running of the limitation period in s. 138.14 of
the OSA until the representative plaintiff had obtained leave. As such, representative plaintiffs
would be required to complete the virtually impossible task of moving for and obtaining leave of
a court for a class action claim under s. 138.3 within the three-year limitation period provided in
s. 138.14 of the OSA. In Green, the ONCA recognized that this outcome was both impractical
and contrary to the legislative intent of both the CPA and the OSA.11
A. THE PURPOSE OF S. 28 OF THE CPA
9. Section 28 of the CPA provides as follows:
28. (1) Subject to subsection (2), any limitation period applicable to a cause of action asserted in a class proceeding is suspended in favour of a class member
11 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at paras. 24-61.
4
on the commencement of the class proceeding and resumes running against the class member when, (a) the member opts out of the class proceeding; (b) an amendment that has the effect of excluding the member from the class is
made to the certification order; (c) a decertification order is made under section 10; (d) the class proceeding is dismissed without an adjudication on the merits; (e) the class proceeding is abandoned or discontinued with the approval of the
court; or (f) the class proceeding is settled with the approval of the court, unless the
settlement provides otherwise. [Emphasis added]
10. The CPA is a remedial statute12 that should be interpreted in accordance with its intended
purpose of ensuring access to justice for those who may otherwise be prohibited from seeking
justice because of the costs of bringing an individual claim. Section 28 of the CPA protects the
interests of class members by suspending the running of a limitation period once a representative
plaintiff has initiated a claim. As the ONCA held in Green, “to require each such person to start
his or her own action while waiting to see if the representative action is certified would defeat
the purpose of s. 28 and the legislation as a whole.”13
B. THE PURPOSE OF PART XXIII.1 OF THE OSA
11. Like the CPA, the OSA’s statutory cause of action for misrepresentation in the secondary
markets reflects a remedial legislative objective. Part XXIII.1 has the dual goal of 1) facilitating
and enhancing access to justice for investors and 2) deterring corporate misconduct and
negligence.14
12. The OSA provides that “no action may be commenced under s. 138.3 without leave of the
court granted upon motion with notice to each defendant.”15 It further provides that “no action
may be commenced under section 138.3 [...] later than the earlier of (i) three years after the date
on which the document containing the misrepresentation was first released, and (ii) six months
after the issuance of a news release disclosing that leave has been granted to commence an action
12 Carom v. Bre-X Minerals, [1999] O.J. No. 281 at para. 22 [Book of Authorities (“BOA”) TAB 1]. 13 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at para. 33. 14 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at para 36. 15 OSA at s. 138.8(1).
5
under section 138.3 or under comparable legislation in the other provinces or territories in
Canada in respect of the same misrepresentation.”16
13. Following the report of the Allen Committee,17 which studied how to improve corporate
disclosure standards in Canadian jurisdictions, the Canadian Securities Administrators
recommended the creation of a statutory mechanism that would give investors an effective
means of bringing claims for deficient disclosure in the secondary markets and that would help
prevent corporate misconduct.18 Part XXIII.1 of the OSA is this mechanism in Ontario. Other
provinces and territories adopted similar provisions.19
14. Unlike the common law cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the cause of
action in s. 138.3 of the OSA removes the requirement on the plaintiff to prove reliance. By
removing this barrier, the legislature achieved its twin goals of enhancing access to justice for
institutional and individual investors, and incentivizing higher standards of corporate disclosure
by supplementing the regulatory authority of the Ontario Securities Commission with a real risk
of civil claims for misbehaviour.20
15. SHARE respectfully submits that the ONCA in Green was correct to draw so heavily
upon legislative intent to create a meaningful remedy in Part XXIII.1 of the OSA when it decided
to overturn Timminco. The decision to implement a statutory cause of action for negligent
misrepresentation in the secondary market was driven by the fact that the need to prove reliance
in the common law cause of action for misrepresentation had rendered that cause of action “so
impractical as to be illusory” for claims in the capital markets.21
16. Furthermore, the challenges of proving reliance are only amplified in class actions. By
removing the need to prove reliance in the statutory cause of action, the legislature gave
institutional and other investors a meaningful and viable remedy in cases where issuers have not 16 OSA at s. 138.14. 17 Toronto Stock Exchange, Final Report: Responsible Corporate Disclosure: A Search for Balance (Toronto: The Toronto Stock Exchange Committee on Corporate Disclosure, 1997) (“The Allen Report”) [BOA TAB 5]. 18 CSA Notice 53-202, Proposal for a Statutory Civil Remedy for Investors in the Secondary Market and Response to the Proposed Change to the Definitions of “Material Facts” and “Material Change” (2000), 23 OSCB 1 (“CSA Notice 53-202”) [BOA TAB 3]. 19 Ibid. 20 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at para. 35. 21 The Allen Report at vi-vii, 12 and 40 [BOA TAB 5].
6
met disclosure standards and, by doing so, increased the confidence of all investors in the
transparency of the Canadian capital markets.
17. While the cause of action in Part XXIII.1 of the OSA certainly reflects a desire to protect
investors, SHARE acknowledges that it also tries to balance investor claims with concerns about
strike suits and unnecessary delay. SHARE submits, however, that the legislative intent22 behind
imposing a limitation period was in no way reflected by Timminco, which effectively denied
investors access to the remedy in Part XXIII.1 of the OSA.
18. The decision of the ONCA in Green reflects important principles of statutory
interpretation that should be upheld by this Honourable Court and that should apply whenever
investor protection issues are engaged. The ONCA in Green was correct to reject a narrow
approach to interpreting Part XXIII.1 of the OSA in favour of a purposive approach that
considered legislative intent and the remedial purpose of the cause of action. The outcome of this
appeal will guide Canadian courts as they interpret similar statutes intended to protect investors
and foster the integrity of the capital markets.
C. THE ONCA WAS CORRECT TO INTERPRET THE CPA AND THE OSA AS COMPANION ACTS
19. The decisions of the ONCA in Green and in Timminco turn on their respective
interpretations of the word ‘assert’ in s. 28 of the CPA. The Court in Timminco held that a claim
under s. 138.3 of the OSA could not be ‘asserted’ and therefore suspended by s. 28 of the CPA
until leave had been granted and the claim could be enforced. SHARE respectfully submits that
the ONCA was correct to revisit and overturn this narrow interpretation. The Timminco
interpretation left class members without the tolling of the limitation period afforded by s. 28 of
the CPA – an outcome that is inconsistent with the statutory purpose of Part XXIII.1 of the OSA
and of s. 28 of the CPA.
20. In its report, the Allen Committee concluded that the cause of action under Part XXIII.1
of the OSA was intended to operate in conjunction with class actions:
The Committee concluded that the combination of class actions with statutory civil liability for a misrepresentation in continuous disclosure, properly designed, would provide the benefits of better disclosure without unduly facilitating meritless litigation. The objective is to provide aggrieved
22 The Allen Report at pp. 40-41 [BOA TAB 5]; CSA Notice 53-202 at p. 5 [BOA TAB 3].
7
investors with a remedy the potential exercise of which would act as a deterrent to misrepresentations (similar to liability for a prospectus misrepresentation) without facilitating extortionate class actions.23
The narrow and restrictive approach to statutory interpretation adopted by the ONCA in
Timminco not only turned what was supposed to be a meaningful and practical remedy for
secondary market misrepresentation into an impractical remedy, but it also denied investors in a
class action the protection of the Act that was drafted for the very purpose of providing them
with a significant new source of investor protection.
21. The ONCA in Green, on the other hand, was correct to hold that, “by pleading the
statutory claim under s. 138.3, the representative plaintiff is ‘making the claim’ or ‘invoking the
legal right’, which meets the bar for the claim being asserted,” thereby ensuring that its decision
was consistent with the legislative purpose of the OSA.24
D. THE ONCA IN GREEN CORRECTLY TOOK NOTICE OF THE PRACTICAL REALITIES OF CLASS ACTION SUITS
22. Another effect of the Timminco decision was that it undercut the viability of a s. 138.3
action and the effectiveness of using the statutory class action procedure to promote proper
disclosure and compliance requirements in the secondary capital markets. Plaintiff investors in
securities class actions often have little or no control over when leave to commence a class action
can be obtained. As the ONCA noted in Green:
Obtaining leave within time may prove either difficult or impossible, depending on a number of circumstances. Two are most significant. Because the limitation period is not dependent on the discoverability of the misrepresentation, the action must be commenced within three years of the misrepresentation. The longer it takes to discover the misrepresentation, the shorter is the period available to conduct the leave motion (and any appeals), obtain leave and commence the action.25
SHARE respectfully submits that the ONCA was correct to overturn its decision in Timminco
because institutional and other investors who bring a motion for leave have only partial control
over when the hearing for leave takes place. Motions and other procedural steps can delay the
23 The Allen Report at p. 27 [BOA TAB 2]. 24 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at para. 46. 25 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at para. 26.
8
timing of the leave motion hearing. Additionally, courts may not be available to hear motions
within the time limit imposed by Timminco.
E. THE ONCA IN GREEN CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE LEAVE STANDARD
23. SHARE respectfully submits that the decision of the ONCA, that the leave requirement is
“a relatively low threshold” 26 will have far reaching consequences for all securities class actions.
The leave requirement test in Part XXIII.1 of the OSA should not be set as though it is a
determination of the ultimate merits of the claim; rather, litigants with “difficult but not
impossible”27 cases should be granted leave to proceed. A higher standard will not only hinder
access to justice, but it will also undermine legislative intent. The purpose of the leave
requirement is to prevent strike suits and other unmeritorious claims, not to screen out good-faith
litigants with difficult claims.
ISSUE #2: THE ISSUES THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE ONCA IN GREEN ARE NOT MOOT
24. The issues in Green were not made moot by the recent amendments to the OSA. To the
contrary, the issues remain of national importance. The amendments to the OSA, which came
into force on July 24, 2014 after the decision in Green was released, suspend the running of the
limitation period in s. 138.14(1) upon notice of an application for leave under s. 138.8.28 While
Ontario has amended the OSA, other provinces with similar leave and limitation provisions29 will
look to this Honourable Court for guidance.30 As the ONCA held in Green:
26 Green ONCA at Tab 1D of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 4 of the Individual Appellants’ Record for Appeal at para. 90, citing Silver v. Imax Corp, [2009] O.J. No. 5573 at Tab 88 of Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II at para. 25 and Dobbie v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund, 2011 ONSC 25 at Tab 31 of Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume I at para. 130. 27 Green ONSC at Tab 1B of CIBC’s Record and at Tab 1 of the Individual Appellants’ Record at para. 373. 28 See OSA, s. 138.14(2), which was added as part of Bill 14, Building Opportunity and Securing Our Future Act (Budget Measures), 2014, c. 7, S. 28, s. 15. 29 See Appendix “A”. Securities Act, RSA 2000, c. S-4, Part 17.01, ss. 211.03, 211.08, 211.095 [BOA TAB 6]; Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418, Part 16.1, ss. 140.3, 140.8, 140.94 [BOA TAB 7]; The Securities Act, CCSM c. S50, Part XVIII, ss. 176(1), 191(1), 197 [BOA TAB 8]; Securities Act, SNB 2004, c. S-5.5, Part 11.1, ss. 161.2(1)-161.2(7), 161.41, 161.9 [BOA TAB 9]; Securities Act, RSNL 1990, c. S-13, Part XXII.1, ss. 138.3, 138.8, 138.14 [BOA TAB 10]; Securities Act, SNWT 2008, c. 10, Part 14, ss. 124, 129, 135 [BOA TAB 11]; Securities Act, RSNS, c. 418, ss. 146A-146N, ss. 146C, 146H, 146N [BOA TAB 12]; Securities Act, NU 2008, c. 12, Part 14, ss. 124, 129, 135 [BOA TAB 11]; Securities Act, RSPEI 1988, c. S-3.I, Part 14, ss. 124, 129, 135 [BOA TAB 13]; Securities Act, CQLR c. V-1.1, Chapter II, Division II, ss. 225.8-225.1, 225.4, 225.6 [BOA TAB 14]; The Securities Act, 1988, SS 1988-89, c. S-42.2, Part XVIII.1, ss. 136.11(1)-136.11(7), 136.4 [BOA TAB 15]; and Securities Act, SY 2007, c. 16, Part 14, ss. 124, 129, 135 [BOA TAB 16]. 30 SHARE is aware that draft legislation has been prepared as part of a cooperative agreement between the federal government and the provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, that would result in those provinces adopting a suspension provision like that found in the OSA. See
9
[A]lmost every province has leave, press release, and limitation period provisions very similar to those of the Ontario Securities Act in ss. 138.8 and 138.14. The fact that the same remedy can be obtained in other provinces for the same misrepresentation is recognized in s. 138.14 as a factor that may affect the limitation period for any claimant in any of those provinces.31
In British Columbia, for example, it remains the case that no action may be commenced for
negligent misrepresentation in the secondary market under s. 140.3 of the Securities Act unless
leave of the court has been granted under s. 140.8.32 Similarly, in Alberta, no action can be
commenced under section 211.03 without leave to proceed being granted under s. 211.08.33
25. The ONCA decision in Green and the amendments to the OSA clarify the Ontario regime,
but it is hoped that this Honourable Court will provide guidance for other jurisdictions and
promote uniformity in disclosure and compliance requirements across Canadian provinces and
territories. Uniformity in disclosure obligations is an important objective that helps prevent
forum shopping and ensures that provincial courts are consistent in their interpretations of
similar statutory provisions. This consistency is integral to ensuring the confidence of
institutional and other investors in the fairness and efficiency of the Canadian securities markets
as a whole.
26. While the legislative amendments in Ontario will affect future applications under Part
XVIII.1 of the OSA, the decision of the ONCA, if upheld, will apply to protect the cases not
covered by the amendments. As of the end of 2013, there were at least 23 ongoing cases in
Ontario that included claims under Part XVIII.1 of the OSA, which had not been granted leave to
proceed and which will be affected by the decision of this Honourable Court.34
Cooperative Capital Markets Regulatory System, Provincial Capital Markets Act: A Consultation Draft, August, 2014, Part 13, s. 171 [BOA TAB 4]. SHARE submits that the guidance of this Honourable Court is still needed given the inherent uncertainty of the passage of such legislation, as well as the fact that the legislation would only be effective in five provinces. 31 Green ONCA at Tab 87 of the Respondents’ Book of Authorities, Volume II at para. 71. 32 RSBC 1996, c. 418, Div. 4, s. 140.8 [BOA TAB 7]. 33 RSA 2000, c. S-4, Part 17.01, s. 211.08 [BOA TAB 6]. 34 Bradley A. Heys et. al., "Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2013 Update—Filings Steady, Law in Flux and Settlements on the Rise", NERA Economic Consulting at p. 11 [BOA TAB 1].
10
CONCLUSION
27. SHARE respectfully submits that the ONCA was appropriately concerned with the effect
of the Timminco decision on contemporaneous and future litigants and also on the integrity of the
secondary capital markets. The fact that three experienced class action judges reached
irreconcilable conclusions in their application of Timminco, and that two reverted to common
law remedies to reach a more fair and practical outcome than that yielded by Timminco,
evidenced the need for the ONCA to revisit its decision.
28. The fact that the decision in Timminco undermined what was supposed to be a practical
remedy available to investors in Part XXIII.1 of the OSA demonstrates that the decision in Green
was necessary to reflect and affirm the legislative goal of enhancing transparency and standards
of disclosure in Canadian securities markets. The approach to statutory interpretation that the
decision in Green reflects will have a direct, significant and positive effect on securities markets
at the national level. It should be upheld by this Honourable Court.
PARTS IV-V – REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS
29. SHARE requests that it be permitted to present oral arguments to this Honourable Court
upon the hearing of this matter.
Lawyers for the Shareholder Association for Research and Education
11
PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Tab Authority Cited at Para
Jurisprudence 1 Carom v. Bre-X Minerals, [1999] OJ No. 281 10 Dobbie v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund, 2011 ONSC 25 23
Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2014 ONCA 90 3-4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 21-24
Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2012 ONSC 3637 3-4, 27 Sharma v. Timminco, 2012 ONCA 107 3
Silver v. Imax, 2012 ONSC 4881 4
Silver v. Imax Corp, [2009] OJ No. 5573 23
Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund v. Celestica Inc., 2012 ONSC 6083 4
Secondary Sources 2
Bradley A. Heys et. al., "Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2013 Update—Filings Steady, Law in Flux and Settlements on the Rise", NERA Economic Consulting
26
3 CSA Notice 53-202, Proposal for a Statutory Civil Remedy for Investors in the Secondary Market and Response to the Proposed Change to the Definitions of “Material Facts” and “Material Change” (2000), 23 OSCB 1
13, 17
4 Cooperative Capital Markets Regulatory System, Provincial Capital Markets Act: A Consultation Draft, August, 2014, Part 13, s. 171. 24
5 Toronto Stock Exchange, Final Report: Responsible Corporate Disclosure: A Search for Balance (Toronto: The Toronto Stock Exchange Committee on Corporate Disclosure, 1997)
13
12
Statutes Not Directly Relied Upon 6 Securities Act, RSA 2000, c. S-4, Part 17.01 ss. 211.03,
211.08, 211.095
7 Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418, Part 16.1 ss. 140.3, 140.8, 140.94
8 The Securities Act, CCSM c. S50, Part XVIII ss. 176(1), 191(1), 197
9 Securities Act, SNB 2004, c. S-5.5, Part 11.1 ss. 161.2(1)-161.2(7), 161.41, 161.9
10 Securities Act, RSNL 1990, c. S-13, Part XXII.1 ss. 138.3, 138.8, 138.14
11 Securities Act, SNWT 2008, c. 10, Part 14 ss. 124, 129, 135
12 Securities Act, RSNS, c. 418 ss. 146C, 146H, 146N
Securities Act, Nu 2008, c. 12, Part 14 ss. 124, 129, 135
13 Securities Act, RSPEI 1988, c. S-3.I, Part 14 ss. 124, 129, 135
14 Securities Act, CQLR c. V-1.1, Chapter II, Division II ss. 225.8, 225.4, 225.6
15 The Securities Act, 1988, SS 1988-89, c. S-42.2, Part XVIII.1 ss. 136.11(1)-136.11(7), 136.4
16 Securities Act, SY 2007, c. 16, Part 14 ss. 124, 129, 135
13
PART VI – STATUTES DIRECTLY AT ISSUE
Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c. 6 (excerpts)
Securities Act, RSO 1990, c. S 5 (excerpts)
14
Securities Act, RSO 1990, c. S 5 Part XXIII.1 CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SECONDARY MARKET DISCLOSURE Liability for Secondary Market Disclosure
LIABILITY
Liability for secondary market disclosure Documents released by responsible issuer 138.3 (1) Where a responsible issuer or a person or company with actual, implied or apparent authority to act on behalf of a responsible issuer releases a document that contains a misrepresentation, a person or company who acquires or disposes of the issuer’s security during the period between the time when the document was released and the time when the misrepresentation contained in the document was publicly corrected has, without regard to whether the person or company relied on the misrepresentation, a right of action for damages against,
(a) the responsible issuer;
(b) each director of the responsible issuer at the time the document was released;
(c) each officer of the responsible issuer who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the release of the document;
(d) each influential person, and each director and officer of an influential person, who knowingly influenced,
(i) the responsible issuer or any person or company acting on behalf of the responsible issuer to release the document, or
(ii) a director or officer of the responsible issuer to authorize, permit or acquiesce in the release of the document; and
(e) each expert where,
(i) the misrepresentation is also contained in a report, statement or opinion made by the expert,
(ii) the document includes, summarizes or quotes from the report, statement or opinion of the expert, and
(iii) if the document was released by a person or company other than the expert, the expert consented in writing to the use of the report, statement or opinion in the document. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (1, 2).
Public oral statements by responsible issuer (2) Where a person with actual, implied or apparent authority to speak on behalf of a responsible issuer makes a public oral statement that relates to the business or affairs of the responsible issuer and that contains a misrepresentation, a person or company who acquires or disposes of the issuer’s security during the period between the time when the public oral statement was made and the time when the misrepresentation contained in the public oral statement was publicly
15
corrected has, without regard to whether the person or company relied on the misrepresentation, a right of action for damages against,
(a) the responsible issuer;
(b) the person who made the public oral statement;
(c) each director and officer of the responsible issuer who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the making of the public oral statement;
(d) each influential person, and each director and officer of the influential person, who knowingly influenced,
(i) the person who made the public oral statement to make the public oral statement, or
(ii) a director or officer of the responsible issuer to authorize, permit or acquiesce in the making of the public oral statement; and
(e) each expert where,
(i) the misrepresentation is also contained in a report, statement or opinion made by the expert,
(ii) the person making the public oral statement includes, summarizes or quotes from the report, statement or opinion of the expert, and
(iii) if the public oral statement was made by a person other than the expert, the expert consented in writing to the use of the report, statement or opinion in the public oral statement. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (3).
Influential persons (3) Where an influential person or a person or company with actual, implied or apparent authority to act or speak on behalf of the influential person releases a document or makes a public oral statement that relates to a responsible issuer and that contains a misrepresentation, a person or company who acquires or disposes of the issuer’s security during the period between the time when the document was released or the public oral statement was made and the time when the misrepresentation contained in the document or public oral statement was publicly corrected has, without regard to whether the person or company relied on the misrepresentation, a right of action for damages against,
(a) the responsible issuer, if a director or officer of the responsible issuer, or where the responsible issuer is an investment fund, the investment fund manager, authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the release of the document or the making of the public oral statement;
(b) the person who made the public oral statement;
(c) each director and officer of the responsible issuer who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the release of the document or the making of the public oral statement;
(d) the influential person;
(e) each director and officer of the influential person who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the release of the document or the making of the public oral statement; and
(f) each expert where,
16
(i) the misrepresentation is also contained in a report, statement or opinion made by the expert,
(ii) the document or public oral statement includes, summarizes or quotes from the report, statement or opinion of the expert, and
(iii) if the document was released or the public oral statement was made by a person other than the expert, the expert consented in writing to the use of the report, statement or opinion in the document or public oral statement. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (4).
Failure to make timely disclosure (4) Where a responsible issuer fails to make a timely disclosure, a person or company who acquires or disposes of the issuer’s security between the time when the material change was required to be disclosed in the manner required under this Act or the regulations and the subsequent disclosure of the material change has, without regard to whether the person or company relied on the responsible issuer having complied with its disclosure requirements, a right of action for damages against,
(a) the responsible issuer;
(b) each director and officer of the responsible issuer who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the failure to make timely disclosure; and
(c) each influential person, and each director and officer of an influential person, who knowingly influenced,
(i) the responsible issuer or any person or company acting on behalf of the responsible issuer in the failure to make timely disclosure, or
(ii) a director or officer of the responsible issuer to authorize, permit or acquiesce in the failure to make timely disclosure. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (5); 2006, c. 33, Sched. Z.5, s. 15.
Multiple roles (5) In an action under this section, a person who is a director or officer of an influential person is not liable in that capacity if the person is liable as a director or officer of the responsible issuer. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (6).
Multiple misrepresentations (6) In an action under this section,
(a) multiple misrepresentations having common subject matter or content may, in the discretion of the court, be treated as a single misrepresentation; and
(b) multiple instances of failure to make timely disclosure of a material change or material changes concerning common subject matter may, in the discretion of the court, be treated as a single failure to make timely disclosure. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (7).
No implied or actual authority (7) In an action under subsection (2) or (3), if the person who made the public oral statement had apparent authority, but not implied or actual authority, to speak on behalf of the issuer, no other
17
person is liable with respect to any of the responsible issuer’s securities that were acquired or disposed of before that other person became, or should reasonably have become, aware of the misrepresentation. 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 12 (8).
Leave to proceed 138.8 (1) No action may be commenced under section 138.3 without leave of the court granted upon motion with notice to each defendant. The court shall grant leave only where it is satisfied that,
(a) the action is being brought in good faith; and
(b) there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at trial in favour of the plaintiff. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 17.
Same
(2) Upon an application under this section, the plaintiff and each defendant shall serve and file one or more affidavits setting forth the material facts upon which each intends to rely. 2002, c. 22, s. 185.
Same
(3) The maker of such an affidavit may be examined on it in accordance with the rules of court. 2002, c. 22, s. 185.
Copies to be sent to the Commission
(4) A copy of the application for leave to proceed and any affidavits and factums filed with the court shall be sent to the Commission when filed. 2009, c. 34, Sched. S, s. 6 (1).
Requirement to provide notice
(5) The plaintiff shall provide the Commission with notice in writing of the date on which the application for leave is scheduled to proceed, at the same time such notice is given to each defendant. 2009, c. 34, Sched. S, s. 6 (2).
Same, appeal of leave decision
(6) If any party appeals the decision of the court with respect to whether leave to commence an action under section 138.3 is granted,
(a) each party to the appeal shall provide a copy of its factum to the Commission when it is filed; and
(b) the appellant shall provide the Commission with notice in writing of the date on which the appeal is scheduled to be heard, at the same time such notice is given to each respondent. 2009, c. 34, Sched. S, s. 6 (2); 2010, c. 1, Sched. 26, s. 7.
Limitation period 138.14 (1) No action shall be commenced under section 138.3,
(a) in the case of misrepresentation in a document, later than the earlier of,
18
(i) three years after the date on which the document containing the misrepresentation was first released, and
(ii) six months after the issuance of a news release disclosing that leave has been granted to commence an action under section 138.3 or under comparable legislation in the other provinces or territories in Canada in respect of the same misrepresentation;
(b) in the case of a misrepresentation in a public oral statement, later than the earlier of,
(i) three years after the date on which the public oral statement containing the misrepresentation was made, and
(ii) six months after the issuance of a news release disclosing that leave has been granted to commence an action under section 138.3 or under comparable legislation in another province or territory of Canada in respect of the same misrepresentation; and
(c) in the case of a failure to make timely disclosure, later than the earlier of,
(i) three years after the date on which the requisite disclosure was required to be made, and
(ii) six months after the issuance of a news release disclosing that leave has been granted to commence an action under section 138.3 or under comparable legislation in another province or territory of Canada in respect of the same failure to make timely disclosure. 2002, c. 22, s. 185; 2004, c. 31, Sched. 34, s. 23.
Suspension of limitation period (2) A limitation period established by subsection (1) in respect of an action is suspended on the date a notice of motion for leave under section 138.8 is filed with the court and resumes running on the date,
(a) the court grants leave or dismisses the motion and,
(i) all appeals have been exhausted, or
(ii) the time for an appeal has expired without an appeal being filed; or
(b) the motion is abandoned or discontinued. 2014, c. 7, Sched. 28, s. 15.
19
Loi sur les valeurs mobilières L.R.O. 1990, CHAPITRE S.5
RESPONSABILITÉ
Responsabilité quant aux obligations d’information sur le marché secondaire Documents publiés par l’émetteur responsable
138.3 (1) Lorsqu’un émetteur responsable ou une personne ou compagnie qui a le pouvoir effectif, implicite ou apparent d’agir au nom d’un tel émetteur publie un document qui contient une présentation inexacte des faits, la personne ou la compagnie qui acquiert ou aliène une valeur mobilière de l’émetteur pendant la période comprise entre le moment où a été publié le document et celui où a été publiquement rectifiée la présentation inexacte des faits qu’il contient a, que la personne ou la compagnie se soit ou non fiée à celle-ci, le droit d’intenter une action en dommages-intérêts contre les personnes suivantes :
a) l’émetteur responsable;
b) tout administrateur de l’émetteur responsable en poste au moment de la publication du document;
c) tout dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable qui a autorisé ou permis la publication du document ou qui y a acquiescé;
d) toute personne influente et tout administrateur ou dirigeant d’une telle personne qui ont sciemment incité :
(i) soit l’émetteur responsable ou toute personne ou compagnie agissant en son nom à publier le document,
(ii) soit un administrateur ou un dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable à autoriser ou à permettre la publication du document ou à y acquiescer;
e) tout expert, si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i) la présentation inexacte des faits figure également dans un rapport, une déclaration ou une opinion de l’expert,
(ii) le document reproduit, résume ou cite des passages du rapport, de la déclaration ou de l’opinion de l’expert,
(iii) si le document a été publié par une personne ou une compagnie autre que l’expert, celui-ci a consenti par écrit à l’utilisation du rapport, de la déclaration ou de l’opinion dans le document. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (1) et (2).
Déclarations orales publiques de l’émetteur responsable (2) Lorsqu’une personne qui a le pouvoir effectif, implicite ou apparent de parler au nom
d’un émetteur responsable fait une déclaration orale publique qui a trait aux activités commerciales ou aux affaires de celui-ci et qui contient une présentation inexacte des faits, la personne ou la compagnie qui acquiert ou aliène une valeur mobilière de l’émetteur pendant la période comprise entre le moment où a été faite la déclaration et celui où a été publiquement rectifiée la présentation inexacte des faits qu’elle contient a, que la personne ou la compagnie se
20
soit ou non fiée à celle-ci, le droit d’intenter une action en dommages-intérêts contre les personnes suivantes :
a) l’émetteur responsable;
b) l’auteur de la déclaration;
c) tout administrateur ou dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable qui a autorisé ou permis que soit faite la déclaration ou qui y a acquiescé;
d) toute personne influente et tout administrateur ou dirigeant d’une telle personne qui ont sciemment incité :
(i) soit l’auteur de la déclaration à faire celle-ci,
(ii) soit un administrateur ou un dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable à autoriser ou à permettre que soit faite la déclaration ou à y acquiescer;
e) tout expert, si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i) la présentation inexacte des faits figure également dans un rapport, une déclaration ou une opinion de l’expert,
(ii) l’auteur de la déclaration reproduit, résume ou cite des passages du rapport, de la déclaration ou de l’opinion de l’expert,
(iii) si la déclaration a été faite par une personne autre que l’expert, celui-ci a consenti par écrit à l’utilisation du rapport, de la déclaration ou de l’opinion dans la déclaration orale publique. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (3).
Personnes influentes (3) Lorsqu’une personne influente ou une personne ou compagnie qui a le pouvoir
effectif, implicite ou apparent d’agir ou de parler au nom d’une telle personne publie un document ou fait une déclaration orale publique qui a trait à un émetteur responsable et qui contient une présentation inexacte des faits, la personne ou la compagnie qui acquiert ou aliène une valeur mobilière de l’émetteur pendant la période comprise entre le moment où a été publié le document ou celui où a été faite la déclaration et celui où a été publiquement rectifiée la présentation inexacte des faits que contient le document ou la déclaration a, que la personne ou la compagnie se soit ou non fiée à celle-ci, le droit d’intenter une action en dommages-intérêts contre les personnes suivantes :
a) l’émetteur responsable, si un de ses administrateurs ou dirigeants ou, dans le cas d’un fonds d’investissement, le gestionnaire du fonds d’investissement a autorisé ou permis que soit publié le document ou que soit faite la déclaration ou qu’il y a acquiescé;
b) l’auteur de la déclaration;
c) tout administrateur ou dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable qui a autorisé ou permis que soit publié le document ou que soit faite la déclaration ou qui y a acquiescé;
d) la personne influente;
e) tout administrateur ou dirigeant de la personne influente qui a autorisé ou permis que soit publié le document ou que soit faite la déclaration ou qui y a acquiescé;
21
f) tout expert, si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i) la présentation inexacte des faits figure également dans un rapport, une déclaration ou une opinion de l’expert,
(ii) le document ou la déclaration reproduit, résume ou cite des passages du rapport, de la déclaration ou de l’opinion de l’expert,
(iii) si le document a été publié ou que la déclaration a été faite par une personne autre que l’expert, celui-ci a consenti par écrit à l’utilisation du rapport, de la déclaration ou de l’opinion dans le document ou la déclaration. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (4).
Non-respect des obligations d’information occasionnelle (4) Lorsqu’un émetteur responsable ne respecte pas les obligations d’information
occasionnelle, la personne ou la compagnie qui acquiert ou aliène une valeur mobilière de l’émetteur pendant la période comprise entre le moment où devait être divulgué le changement important de la manière exigée en application de la présente loi ou des règlements et celui où il l’a été a, que la personne ou la compagnie se soit ou non fiée à ce que l’émetteur responsable ait respecté ses obligations d’information, le droit d’intenter une action en dommages-intérêts contre les personnes suivantes :
a) l’émetteur responsable;
b) tout administrateur ou dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable qui a autorisé ou permis le non-respect des obligations d’information occasionnelle ou qui y a acquiescé;
c) toute personne influente et tout administrateur ou dirigeant d’une telle personne qui ont sciemment incité :
(i) soit l’émetteur responsable ou toute personne ou compagnie agissant en son nom à ne pas respecter les obligations d’information occasionnelle,
(ii) soit un administrateur ou un dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable à autoriser ou à permettre le non-respect des obligations d’information occasionnelle ou à y acquiescer. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (5); 2006, chap. 33, annexe Z.5, art. 15.
Rôles multiples (5) Dans une action intentée en vertu du présent article, la personne qui est administrateur
ou dirigeant d’une personne influente n’encourt aucune responsabilité à ce titre si elle en encourt une à titre d’administrateur ou de dirigeant de l’émetteur responsable. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (6).
Multiples présentations inexactes des faits (6) Dans une action intentée en vertu du présent article :
a) d’une part, de multiples présentations inexactes des faits dont le sujet ou le contenu est le même peuvent, à la discrétion du tribunal, être traitées comme une seule présentation inexacte des faits;
b) d’autre part, de multiples cas de non-respect des obligations d’information occasionnelle relativement à un ou à plusieurs changements importants dont le sujet
22
est le même peuvent, à la discrétion du tribunal, être traités comme un seul cas de non-respect. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (7).
Absence d’un pouvoir implicite ou effectif (7) Dans une action intentée en vertu du paragraphe (2) ou (3), si l’auteur de la déclaration
orale publique avait le pouvoir apparent, mais non le pouvoir implicite ou effectif, de parler au nom de l’émetteur responsable, aucune autre personne n’encourt une responsabilité à l’égard des valeurs mobilières de celui-ci qu’elle a acquises ou qu’elle a aliénées avant qu’elle ne prenne ou qu’elle ne devrait raisonnablement avoir pris connaissance de la présentation inexacte des faits. 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, par. 12 (8).
QUESTIONS DE PROCÉDURE
Autorisation de poursuivre 138.8 (1) Une action ne peut être intentée en vertu de l’article 138.3 qu’avec
l’autorisation du tribunal, accordée sur motion avec préavis à chaque défendeur, et que si le tribunal est convaincu de ce qui suit :
a) l’action est intentée de bonne foi;
b) il est raisonnablement possible que l’action soit réglée au moment du procès en faveur du demandeur. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, art. 17.
Idem (2) Sur requête présentée en vertu du présent article, le demandeur et chaque défendeur
signifient et déposent un ou plusieurs affidavits énonçant les faits importants sur lesquels ils ont chacun l’intention de se fonder. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185.
Idem (3) L’auteur d’un tel affidavit peut être interrogé au sujet de celui-ci conformément aux
règles de pratique. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185.
Copies envoyées à la Commission (4) Les copies de la requête en autorisation de poursuivre et des affidavits et mémoires
déposés auprès du tribunal sont envoyées à la Commission au moment du dépôt. 2009, chap. 34, annexe S, par. 6 (1).
Obligation de donner un préavis (5) Le demandeur avise par écrit la Commission de la date prévue de l’audition de la
requête en autorisation, en même temps qu’il en avise chaque défendeur. 2009, chap. 34, annexe S, par. 6 (2).
Idem, appel de la décision quant à l’octroi de l’autorisation (6) Si l’une des parties interjette appel de la décision du tribunal quant à l’octroi de
l’autorisation d’intenter une action en vertu de l’article 138.3 :
a) d’une part, chaque partie à l’appel fournit un exemplaire de son mémoire à la Commission au moment de son dépôt;
b) d’autre part, l’appelant avise par écrit la Commission de la date prévue de l’audition de l’appel, en même temps qu’il en avise chaque intimé. 2009, chap. 34, annexe S, par. 6 (2); 2010, chap. 1, annexe 26, art. 7.
23
Prescription 138.14 (1) Aucune action ne doit être intentée en vertu de l’article 138.3 :
a) dans le cas de la présentation inexacte de faits dans un document, après le premier en date des jours suivants :
(i) trois ans après la date à laquelle le document contenant la présentation inexacte des faits a été publié pour la première fois,
(ii) six mois après la délivrance d’un communiqué portant qu’a été accordée une autorisation d’intenter une action en vertu de l’article 138.3 ou de dispositions législatives comparables d’autres provinces ou territoires du Canada à l’égard de la même présentation inexacte des faits;
b) dans le cas de la présentation inexacte de faits dans une déclaration orale publique, après le premier en date des jours suivants :
(i) trois ans après la date à laquelle la déclaration contenant la présentation inexacte des faits a été faite,
(ii) six mois après la délivrance d’un communiqué portant qu’a été accordée une autorisation d’intenter une action en vertu de l’article 138.3 ou de dispositions législatives comparables d’autres provinces ou territoires du Canada à l’égard de la même présentation inexacte des faits;
c) dans le cas du non-respect des obligations d’information occasionnelle, après le premier en date des jours suivants :
(i) trois ans après la date à laquelle la divulgation obligatoire devait être faite,
(ii) six mois après la délivrance d’un communiqué portant qu’a été accordée une autorisation d’intenter une action en vertu de l’article 138.3 ou de dispositions législatives comparables d’autres provinces ou territoires du Canada à l’égard du même non-respect des obligations d’information occasionnelle. 2002, chap. 22, art. 185; 2004, chap. 31, annexe 34, art. 23.
Suspension du délai de prescription (2) Le délai de prescription créé par le paragraphe (1) à l’égard d’une action est suspendu
à la date où un avis de motion en autorisation visé à l’article 138.8 est déposé au tribunal et recommence à courir à la date où, selon le cas :
a) le tribunal accorde l’autorisation ou rejette la motion et l’une des conditions suivantes est remplie :
(i) toutes les voies d’appel ont été épuisées,
(ii) le délai d’appel a expiré sans qu’un appel ait été interjeté;
b) la motion fait l’objet d’un désistement. 2014, chap. 7, annexe 28, art. 15.
24
Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6
28. (1) Subject to subsection (2), any limitation period applicable to a cause of action asserted in a class proceeding is suspended in favour of a class member on the commencement of the class proceeding and resumes running against the class member when,
(a) the member opts out of the class proceeding;
(b) an amendment that has the effect of excluding the member from the class is made to the certification order;
(c) a decertification order is made under section 10;
(d) the class proceeding is dismissed without an adjudication on the merits;
(e) the class proceeding is abandoned or discontinued with the approval of the court; or
(f) the class proceeding is settled with the approval of the court, unless the settlement provides otherwise. 1992, c. 6, s. 28 (1).
25
Loi de 1992 sur les recours collectifs L.O. 1992, CHAPITRE 6
Prescription 28. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), tout délai de prescription applicable à une cause
d’action invoquée dans un recours collectif est suspendu en faveur d’un membre du groupe à l’introduction du recours collectif et reprend au détriment du membre au moment où, selon le cas:
a) ce membre se retire du recours collectif;
b) est apportée une modification de l’ordonnance certifiant le recours collectif qui a pour effet d’exclure du groupe le membre;
c) une ordonnance annulant l’ordonnance certifiant le recours collectif est rendue en vertu de l’article 10;
d) le recours collectif est rejeté sans décision sur le fond;
e) il y a désistement du recours collectif avec l’approbation du tribunal;
f) le recours collectif fait l’objet d’une transaction avec l’approbation du tribunal, à moins que la transaction ne prévoie autre chose. 1992, chap. 6, par. 28 (1).
Idem (2) Lorsqu’il existe un droit d’appel à l’égard d’un des événements décrits aux alinéas (1)
a) à f), le délai de prescription reprend dès l’expiration du délai d’appel, si aucun appel n’a été introduit, ou dès le règlement d’un appel. 1992, chap. 6, par. 28 (2).
26
Appendix “A” Leave provisions in provincial and territorial statutes Provincial or Territorial Act
Provision creating liability for misrepresentation in the secondary market
Provision requiring leave to proceed
Provision imposing a limitation period
Provision suspending the running of the limitation period
Alberta Securities Act, RSA 2000, c. S-4, Part 17.01
s. 211.03 s. 211.08
s. 211.095 No suspension provision.
British Columbia Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418, Part 16.1
s. 140.3 s. 140.8 s. 140.94 No suspension provision.
Manitoba, The Securities Act, CCSM, c. S50, Part XVIII
s. 176(1) s. 191(1) s. 197(1) s. 197(2)
New Brunswick Securities Act, SNB 2004, c. S- 5.5, Part 11.1
ss. 161.2(1)-161.2(7)
s. 161.41 s. 161.9(1) s. 161.9(2)
Newfoundland and Labrador, RSNL 1990, c. S-13, Part XXII.1
s. 138.3 s. 138.8 s. 138.14 No suspension provision.
Northwest Territories, Securities Act, SNWT 2008, c. 10, Part 14
s. 124 s. 129 s. 135 No suspension provision.
Nova Scotia, Securities Act, RSNS, c. 418, ss. 146A-146N
s. 146C s. 146H s. 146N No suspension provision.
27
Nunavut, Securities Act, S Nu 2008, c. 12, Part 14
s. 124 s. 129 s. 135 No suspension provision.
Ontario, RSO 1990, c. S. 5, Part XXIII.1
s. 138.3 s.138.8 s.138.14(1) s.138.14(2)
Prince Edward Island, Securities Act, RSPEI 1988, c. S-3.I, Part 14
s. 124 s. 129 s. 135 No suspension provision.
Quebec, Securities Act, CQLR c. V-1.1, Chapter II, Division II
ss. 225.8-225.11 s. 225.4 s. 225.6. Any interested party may request that the court declare an authorization perempted if the plaintiff does not commence the action within three months after authorization is granted under s. 225.4.
No suspension provision.
Saskatchewan, The Securities Act, 1988, SS 1988-89, c. S-42.2, Part XVIII.1
ss. 136.11(1)-136.11(7)
s. 136.4 No limitation period.
Not applicable.
Yukon Securities Act, SY 2007, c. 16, Part 14.
s. 124 s. 129 s. 135 No suspension provision.