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.
