Canada: IMAX And Securities Class Actions Involving The Secondary Market - The Big Picture Is Still Not Clear

Last Updated: March 4 2011
Article by Jeffrey S. Leon and Preet K. Bell

Silver v. IMAX is the first decision to consider the new statutory cause of action provisions under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act (Ontario) for misrepresentations made in secondary market disclosures.1 To bring such a claim, prospective plaintiffs must first obtain leave of the Court. This leave requirement serves a gatekeeper function, in order to weed out unmeritorious litigation. In Silver v. IMAX,2 Justice Van Rensburg set a relatively low threshold for plaintiffs to obtain leave. The decision prompted much debate. An application for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was argued in July 2010. On February 14, 2011, Justice Corbett denied the application for leave. At present, the low threshold test established by Justice Van Rensburg remains the law in Ontario.

In his reasons for denying leave,3 Justice Corbett left what he acknowledged were the controversial and difficult substantive issues to the Court of Appeal, following an actual trial of the issues (assuming a trial is held and an appeal is taken). His Honour's reasons do not reflect a view that Justice Van Rensburg's decision is necessarily correct. Rather, in his view, the issues and concerns before the Court should be left for a later date. In the interim, and subject to a judge taking a different view, the standard set for leave to bring an action under Part XXIII.1 as pronounced by Justice Van Rensburg, stands.

In Silver v. IMAX, the plaintiffs bought IMAX shares on the secondary market (the TSX and NASDAQ). The value of the shares dropped 40 percent following a press release from the company announcing it was responding to an SEC inquiry regarding the timing of its revenue recognition. The plaintiffs alleged that IMAX (and some of its directors and officers) improperly recognized certain revenue resulting in a misrepresentation of the true state of the company's revenue in its 2005 annual financial results and certain press releases. In 2007, IMAX restated its financial results and subsequently acknowledged that there had been an error in revenue recognition.

The test for leave to bring a claim under Part XXIII.1 is a two-part statutory test: (1) the action must be brought in good faith; and (2) the plaintiffs must have a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

For the first requirement of good faith, Justice Van Rensburg stated that the plaintiffs have to establish "that they are bringing their action in the honest belief that they have an arguable claim, and for reasons that are consistent with the purpose of the statutory cause of action and not for an oblique or collateral purpose." For the second part of the test (reasonable possibility of success), Justice Van Rensburg determined that while the court must undertake a preliminary analysis of the merits of the case, it must keep in mind the limitations of available evidence at this early stage. The evidentiary threshold applied by Justice Van Rensburg was therefore low and the plaintiffs were able to satisfy the test to obtain leave with minimal evidence. By way of contrast, the requirement for the defendants to successfully assert a statutory defence to defeat the plaintiffs' leave motion was significantly higher; the evidence of such a defence must "foreclose the plaintiffs' reasonable possibility of success at trial."

In companion reasons, Justice Van Rensburg certified the class action for a global class of investors for the statutory cause of action under Part XXIII.1 as well as for the common law claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. The common law claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation are often difficult to certify as a class action due to the requisite element of reliance. In fact, part of the impetus for Part XXIII.1 was to overcome the hurdle of reliance in such common law claims by removing that requirement.

Before Justice Corbett, the defendants argued that Justice Van Rensburg erred on several significant issues. For leave to appeal to be granted it is necessary to establish that there are conflicting decisions on a point and it is desirable for leave to be granted, or that there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the order in question and the proposed appeal involves matters of such importance that the granting of leave is justified. Justice Corbett found that neither two part test had been met. In reaching this conclusion His Honour took the view that in determining whether to grant leave the focus must be on the order or decision and not on "debatable aspects of the reasons" of the motions judge: "interesting legal questions raised by reasons, but not by decisions, can await other cases."

Justice Corbett found that since this was the first decision granting leave under s.138.8(1), there could be no conflicting decisions. He accepted that the nature of the leave test was a matter of general importance that would justify leave being granted if there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below. However, in His Honour's view, there was no such reason: "this was not a close call that turned on the precise test to grant leave."4

One of the arguments made by the defendants was that the good faith requirement justified vigorous scrutiny of each aspect of the claim. Justice Corbett found this to be too restrictive an approach: plaintiffs can rely on their counsel to frame the claims. A further argument made was that the standard of proof for leave was too low for plaintiffs, and there was a reverse of the statutory onus for defendants to meet in respect of an affirmative defence. Justice Corbett did not state that the standard of proof and onus found by Justice Van Rensburg was correct. Rather, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of Her Honour's decision "whatever the precise formulation of the onus, standard of proof, and test to be applied in respect to affirmative defences."

Overall, Justice Corbett agreed that many of the substantive issues relating to Part XXIII.1 and common law claims for misrepresentation are important, complex and controversial. He concluded that "appellate courts will be in a better position to address them on a full factual record, after trial." Specifically, with respect to the common law claims, Justice Corbett concluded that Justice Van Rensburg's decision "does no more than permit the plaintiffs to proceed to trial. The Court of Appeal will be able to give full consideration to these issues if and when the case is appealed after a trial judgment."5

The proposition that these issues should be considered following a trial has much to recommend it. However, given the increasing number of secondary market class actions, the courts, counsel and clients would benefit now from further consideration of these new statutory provisions at an appellate level. The real question is whether Justice Van Rensburg took the "right approach" for her analysis of the leave requirement. Appellate review will have to await a lower court taking a different approach than Justice Van Rensburg, such that there will be conflicting decisions and the test for leave will be satisfied.

It is also a reality that few class actions, secondary market or otherwise, ever get to trial, let alone appeal. The impact of the IMAX approach may well put some pressure on defendants to settle in order to avoid the uncertainties and the market reality created by such uncertainties. In fact, it was in part the desire to avoid such pressures, where not justified by the facts, that lead to the inclusion of the leave test in the legislation Other judicial reasoning has, in fact, suggested a different perspective. For example, Justice Lax in CV Technologies had a different and significantly more robust view of the court's gatekeeper function in relation to early disclosure by proposed defendants in secondary market class actions. This could indicate that a conflicting decision may well be on the horizon.


1. See prior Bennett Jones publication on this decision: " Silver v. IMAX: Round One to the Plaintiffs in a Secondary Market Misrepresentation Claim" dated January 19, 2010.

2. [2009] O.J. No. 5573 & [2009] O.J. No. 5585 (Sup. Ct. J.).

3. Silver v. IMAX, 2011 ONSC 1035.

4. The Court did not accept Justice Lax's reasoning in Ainslie v. CV Technologies, [2009] O.J. No. 730 (Sup. Ct. J.) as a "conflicting decision" [CV Technologies].

5. Justice Corbett agreed with Justice Sachs in the leave application in McKenna v. Gammon Gold (2010), 266 O.A.C. 314 (Sup. Ct. J.) that the facts determined by Justice Sachs in that case were distinguishable from the facts in IMAX.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jeffrey S. Leon
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions