Melanie D. Schweizer

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Securities Act.

The trial judge had held that the appellants had a continuing obligation to disclose poor intra-quarterly financial results before the closing of their initial public offering, and that their failure to do so rendered an implied representation of objective reasonableness in their financial forecast false.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act distinguishes between material facts and material changes, and imposes no continuing obligation to disclose material facts after a prospectus receipt is issued.

The Court further held that the trial judge erred in implying a representation of objective reasonableness and in failing to apply the business judgment rule to management's assessment of the forecast.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in costs, subject to a reduction for an unsuccessful appeal regarding two U.S. companies and the unsatisfactory nature of the statement of claim.

The two U.S. respondents were awarded costs of $5,856.53 and $500, respectively.

The appellant, who had been discharged from bankruptcy, was denied credit because the respondent credit reporting agencies allegedly included statute-barred debts in his credit report contrary to the Consumer Reporting Act.

The appellant brought a proposed class action in negligence.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding policy reasons against recognizing a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the Canadian respondents, holding that a prima facie duty of care exists based on proximity and foreseeability, analogous to negligent misrepresentation, and that policy considerations do not make it plain and obvious that the claim should be struck at this stage.

The claims against the American parent companies were struck for failing to plead sufficient material facts.

The plaintiffs in two class actions moved to quash appeals brought by the defendants from an order declaring that the plaintiffs shared a common interest with the Receiver of YBM, and that the Receiver could produce a report to them without waiving privilege.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was procedural and interlocutory, as it did not resolve any substantive issue in the proceedings.

The court rejected the argument that the order was final simply because it involved a non-party (the Receiver), distinguishing prior case law.

The motions to quash were granted.