2 total
Leave granted for secondary market misrepresentation class action regarding undisclosed risks of mining license suspension.
The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and to certify the proceeding as a class action.
The claim alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material risks regarding the potential suspension of a mining license in Guatemala due to a lack of indigenous consultation.
The court found that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial based on credible expert evidence regarding Guatemalan law and economic materiality.
The court granted leave and certified the global class action, rejecting the defendants' objections regarding the representative plaintiff and the inclusion of foreign shareholders.
Umbrella purchasers have a cause of action under the Competition Act; appeals dismissed.
Two sets of appellants (manufacturers of optical disc drives) appealed the certification of a price-fixing class proceeding in British Columbia.
The majority held that the discoverability rule applies to extend the two-year limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, that fraudulent concealment can toll a limitation period without requiring a special relationship between the parties, that umbrella purchasers (persons who bought from non-defendant manufacturers) have a cause of action under s. 36(1)(a), that s. 36(1) does not bar concurrent common law and equitable claims, and that a plaintiff's expert methodology need only establish that overcharges reached the indirect-purchaser level to certify loss as a common issue.
Côté J. dissented in part, finding that the discoverability rule does not apply to s. 36(4)(a)(i) and that umbrella purchasers have no cause of action under s. 36(1).
Both appeals were dismissed.
