Caitlin R. Sainsbury

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against financial advisors and their dealer, alleging they systemically recommended a 'Leveraging Scheme' to borrow money to invest in mutual funds without regard to suitability.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the class was identifiable, and common issues existed regarding the duty of care, breach of duty, and punitive damages.

The court declined to certify damages as a common issue, finding it required individual assessment.

The court also held that a class proceeding was preferable to the Ombudsman for Banking and Investment Services (OBSI) process, which lacked binding remedial powers and adequate investor participation.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence of an MFDA settlement was dismissed.

Deutsche Bank Securities Limited applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for a hearing and review of a decision by an IIROC Hearing Panel that dismissed its motion to stay a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction because it could not compel evidence from non-members, thereby denying the applicant the right to make full answer and defence.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the IIROC Hearing Panel correctly applied the law by reserving the stay decision until the extent of any prejudice could be assessed at a hearing on the merits.

The Commission also held that the application was premature.

The corporation sought an order approving a proposed arrangement to collapse its dual-class share structure by purchasing for cancellation all outstanding Class B shares for consideration comprising 9 million newly issued Class A shares and US$300 million in cash.

The application judge approved the arrangement.

The opposing shareholders appealed, arguing the application judge erred in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly applied the BCE test.

The corporation was not required to demonstrate with certainty that the benefits of the arrangement would offset the costs, but only a reasonable prospect of clearly identified benefits.

The affirmative vote of the Class A shareholders was important evidence supporting the fairness of the arrangement.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a hearing under section 127 of the Securities Act regarding Magna International Inc.'s proposed plan of arrangement to collapse its multiple voting share structure.

Staff alleged the management information circular lacked sufficient information and the transaction was contrary to the public interest.

The Commission found the proposed transaction was not abusive, but concluded the circular failed to provide shareholders with sufficient disclosure to make an informed decision, particularly given the lack of a board recommendation and the transaction's nature as a related party transaction.

The Commission ordered that the circular be amended to include specific material information, including financial analysis and alternatives considered by the special committee, before the shareholder vote could proceed.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider whether to approve a Settlement Agreement between Staff and Biovail Corporation.

Biovail admitted to inaccurate and false public disclosure that materially impacted its financial statements, including failing to disclose arrangements with a research vehicle, improperly recognizing revenue from a 'bill and hold' transaction, failing to correct a material error in exchange rates, and disseminating incorrect statements regarding a truck accident.

Biovail also provided misleading information to Staff.

The Commission approved the Settlement Agreement, finding it in the public interest, and ordered Biovail to be reprimanded, pay a $5,000,000 administrative penalty, pay $1,500,000 in costs, and retain a consultant to review its compliance training.