Canada: Regulatory Settlements And Class Proceedings: The Ontario Court Of Appeal Closes The Door, But Is A Window Still Open?

Last Updated: February 7 2012
Article by Jeffrey S. Leon, Preet K. Bell and Michael A. Eizenga

On January 27, the Court of Appeal released its decision in Fischer v. IG Investment Management,1 upholding the decision of the Divisional Court to certify the class action.2 The main issue in this case is whether the class action should be certified in light of a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) which already provided the plaintiffs with a payment of $205.6 million. The motions judge refused to certify the class action on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferred procedure given that access to justice had already been secured.3 However, this decision was reversed by the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of the Divisional Court but for different reasons.


In Fischer, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant mutual fund managers permitted market timing to occur in the mutual funds which they managed. Market timers purchase mutual funds they believe are undervalued for a short-term turnaround, using time zone differences and the fact that the daily value of a mutual fund is only calculated once a day. While market timing is not illegal, the profit made by market timers is at the expense of long-term investors. In November 2003, the OSC launched an investigation into these practices and subsequently took enforcement proceedings against the defendant mutual fund managers for failing to act in the public interest. All of the defendants entered into settlement agreements with the OSC, pursuant to which they paid $205.6 million compensation to their investors; those investors constitute the majority of the class members.

The plaintiffs argued that the OSC settlements did not amount to full compensation, as the actual damages suffered could be as high as $831.9 million (based on an expert report filed at the certification hearing). The plaintiffs also relied on the fact that they had not participated in the OSC negotiations, nor were they signatories to the OSC settlement agreements, to argue that they had not yet had their day in court and the action should be certified so the balance of the monies owing could be recovered.

One of the requirements for certification of a class proceeding is that a class action must be the preferable procedure for resolution of the common issues. The defendants argued that the preferred procedure was the already completed OSC proceeding with its $205.6 million settlement.

At first instance, Justice Perell agreed with the defendants and dismissed the motion for certification, finding that the OSC proceeding and settlement agreements had provided access to justice for the investors, and achieved one of the main purposes of class actions: behaviour modification. However, Justice Molloy, writing for the Divisional Court, overturned the decision, finding that Justice Perell's analysis of the impact of the OSC settlement on the issue of preferable procedure was "fundamentally flawed as a question of law". Justice Molloy found that there was some basis to the plaintiffs' position that they were still owed damages in excess of the OSC settlement amount and, once this was established, the Court found that the purpose of the OSC proceeding and its findings were "wholly irrelevant" to the analysis.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The central issue considered by the Court of Appeal was whether the proposed class action met the preferable procedure criterion. The Court concluded that it did, and since Justice Perell had originally found that the other criteria for certification were met, the proposed class action was certified.

The Court of Appeal provided guidance on how the preferable procedure inquiry should be conducted. The Court stated that in considering whether an alternative process is preferable to a class action, the court must examine not simply the quantum of compensation generated by the alternative proceeding, but rather the fundamental characteristics of the proposed alternative proceeding, such as: (1) the impartiality and independence of the forum; (2) the scope and nature of the jurisdiction and remedial powers of the alternative forum; (3) the procedural safeguards that apply in the alternative proceeding, including the right to participate and the transparency of the decision-making process; and (4) the accessibility of the alternative proceeding, including the costs associated with accessing the process and the convenience of doing so. These characteristics must then be compared to those of a class proceeding in order to determine which is the preferable means of fulfilling the purposes of a class action: judicial economy, access to justice and behaviour modification. Not all of the characteristics will be material in every case; each case will turn on its own facts.

The Court of Appeal found that both courts below erred by focusing on the substantive outcome of the OSC proceeding, and whether the settlements provided investors with all or substantially all of the monetary relief sought. The outcome of the alternative proceeding is not relevant. Rather, the courts should have considered the regulatory nature of the OSC's jurisdiction and its remedial powers, as well as the lack of participatory rights afforded to affected investors.

In following this analysis, the Court of Appeal concluded that a class action is the preferable procedure in this case. It highlighted two important distinctions leading to that conclusion. The first is that the jurisdiction of the OSC is regulatory (i.e., protective and preventative), not compensatory. Therefore, the OSC's jurisdiction over the defendants was exercised in a different context and for a different purpose than the court's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims concerning the defendants' conduct. The OSC is not empowered to make orders requiring a party to make compensation or restitution or to pay damages to affected individuals. As such, the remedial powers given to the OSC are insufficient to enable it to fully address the class members' claims. Rather, the OSC proceedings that took place and the proposed class action are intended as parallel, not mutually exclusive, proceedings. The Court of Appeal noted that another provision of the Securities Act allows the OSC to apply to a judge to make a variety of orders including compensation, but such an application was not brought in this case. It is possible that if the OSC took that further step and also applied to the court to make a compensation order, the outcome on certification could potentially have been different.

The Court of Appeal also noted that while the OSC settlement agreements included a compensatory element for investors, these voluntary payments could not alter the regulatory purpose of the OSC proceeding. The role of the OSC proceeding was not to assess the claims raised by the proposed class or to quantify the harm allegedly caused by the defendants' actions, nor was the OSC attempting to quantify the settlement amount in a manner analogous to the way in which damages might be calculated in a civil action. The second distinction found by the Court of Appeal was that the OSC proceeding did not provide comparable rights of participation to the affected investors as the procedural rights available in a class action. The OSC proceeding provided for little to no basis for investor participation: there was no attempt to notify the affected investors; neither the investors nor their counsel attended the hearings or made submissions; the substantive portions of the hearings took place in camera; and the procedure by which the settlements were arrived at did not facilitate investor participation. The investors were not, and were not intended to be, parties to the OSC process. The Court of Appeal also highlighted that the settlement agreements signed by the defendants expressly contemplated that they could face civil law suits.

The Court of Appeal was critical of the approach adopted by both the motions judge and the Divisional Court. It stated that the preferability analysis should not be reduced to an ex post facto assessment of the adequacy of the award arrived at through the alternative procedure. One main reason for this is that a certification motion is a procedural matter, and an evaluation of the adequacy of the settlement would require a determination tantamount to a finding on the merits. Instead, the preferable procedure inquiry must focus on the underlying purpose and nature of the alternative proceeding as compared with the class proceeding.

Going Forward

While this decision highlights the reality that defendants could be faced with a regulatory liability only to be followed by a class action, the Court of Appeal did provide some clarity on the preferable procedure inquiry. The Court of Appeal did not completely shut down the possibility that a regulatory proceeding could be a preferable procedure; the outcome will depend on the facts of each case. However, the criteria laid down by the Court to be considered in a preferable procedure inquiry appear to make that less likely. The relevant consideration is not the outcome of the alternative proceeding, but rather the central characteristics of that proceeding as compared to a class action. Therefore, unless the alternative proceeding provides for meaningful participation by the plaintiffs, and a meaningful opportunity for recovery similar to that which could be achieved in a class action, it will be difficult to find that a class action is not the preferable procedure on this basis. For example, would it be sufficient to have regulatory counsel consult with an investors' committee? While the door may be closed, a window may still be open to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Of course, one might question whether class members (other than a representative plaintiff) have meaningful participation in any class action. From a realist's perspective, class counsel negotiate with defence counsel to achieve the best settlement available. Counsel then jointly support the settlement before the Court, with the judge having little, if any, evidence independent of counsel on the adequacy of the settlement. Does the introduction of class counsel following a regulatory settlement really add to the quality of the process? The Court of Appeal says yes. But with a slightly different record and process, one wonders.

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