The plaintiffs brought a proposed securities class action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act, obtained leave under s. 138.1, and had the action certified.
They later moved for leave to amend their statement of claim to add new allegations of misrepresentation.
The defendants consented to amendments that merely expanded already-pleaded allegations but opposed the balance as fresh misrepresentation claims requiring a separate, and now time-barred, leave application.
The court held that leave under s. 138.8 is assessed against each discrete allegation of misrepresentation, so that the impugned amendments — alleging new bribery and code-of-ethics violations in multiple jurisdictions — were not mere elaborations but discrete claims requiring a fresh leave application.
The motion was granted in part: the consented amendments were allowed and the impugned amendments were refused.
