Charlotte K.B. Harman

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated August 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs of the motion were awarded to the moving parties in the amount of $7,000 inclusive.

The defendants (Underwriters) brought a motion to dismiss the class proceeding for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act.

As a preliminary issue, the court admitted emails between counsel, finding that any common interest privilege was waived by the defendants bringing the delay motion.

On the main issue, the court declined to follow previous strict interpretations of section 29.1.

The court held that its directions at an initial case conference, which required the plaintiffs to take specific steps as soon as practicable, effectively established a timetable under section 29.1(c).

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The appellant, David Wong, representing a class of shareholders, appealed the summary dismissal of a secondary market misrepresentation class action against Pretium Resources Inc. and its former CEO.

The claim alleged that Pretium failed to publicly disclose concerns about its Brucejack mining project's resource estimate and feasibility study, which had been conveyed by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Strathcona's concerns were not material facts requiring disclosure because they were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and unreliable opinions, not undisputed facts.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's alternative finding that the respondents had conducted a reasonable investigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a putative shareholders' class action for secondary market liability under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant made material misrepresentations regarding a cannabis facility build-out project and joint venture, which were later publicly corrected, causing a significant drop in share price.

The court found the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial, rejecting the defendant's expert economic evidence that the market had already absorbed the news.

Leave to proceed was granted.