Canada: Statements Of Defence Required In Advance Of Certification In Sino-Forest Class Proceeding

In the recent Trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund et al. v. Sino-Forest decision – released March 26, 2012 – Justice Perell affirmed his earlier reasoning in Pennyfeather v. Timminco1 by requiring the delivery of statements of defence before the certification hearing. Perell J. also ordered that the certification hearing be held together with the plaintiffs' motion for leave to advance statutory secondary market claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. Justice Perell observed that the delivery of statements of defence may not always be appropriate in advance of certification – particularly in the context of proposed class proceedings involving claims for secondary market misrepresentations under the Securities Act. Nonetheless, defendants in Ontario must now anticipate the very real possibility that statements of defence will be required before the issues are narrowed at the certification hearing.


The Sino-Forest class action is one of the largest securities class actions ever brought in Canada. Sino-Forest is a public company whose shares formerly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On June 2, 2011, a short selling firm known as Muddy Waters released a report alleging Sino-Forest was a fraud and a "multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme." In the fallout of the Muddy Waters Report, the Sino-Forest share price dropped dramatically, trading at less than 75% of its pre-Muddy Waters value when cease-traded on August 28, 2011.

The plaintiffs in the proposed class proceeding seek more than $6 billion in damages arising from the drastic reduction in share value, and have advanced causes of action in conspiracy, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation in the secondary market. A significant part of the plaintiffs' claim for damages is their secondary market misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. Plaintiffs seeking to bring claims under that Part of the Act must first obtain leave of the court.

On this motion before Justice Perell, the plaintiffs sought two principal procedural orders: 1) that statements of defence be delivered within 30 days and in any event before the leave and certification motion; and 2) that the leave motion under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act be heard together with the certification motion. While Justice Perell had previously ordered statements of defence be delivered before certification in Pennyfeather and in Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada2, the Sino-Forest case was the first time that this relief was actively sought by plaintiffs and opposed by defendants on a motion before the Court. Similarly, though the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether the leave and certification motions should be heard together in Silver v. Imax Corp.3 and Dobbie v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund4, this was the first time that defendants had actively opposed the joint hearing.

Delivery of Statements of Defence Before Certification

Justice Perell's decision requiring statements of defence before certification in Pennyfeather marked a reversal of the convention that had stood in Ontario for over fifteen years since Justice Winkler's (as he then was) ruling in Mangan v. Inco Ltd.5 In Pennyfeather, Justice Perell stated that "[...] it would be advantageous for the immediate case and for other cases, if the current convention ended and defendants were required in the normal course to deliver a statement of defence before the certification motion."

In the Sino-Forest decision, Justice Perell stood by his earlier reasoning in Pennyfeather. He held that it was "the clear intention of the Legislature" that statements of defence be delivered before certification. Further, he stated that the early delivery of statements of defence will assist in the adjudication of the standard certification criteria, and that defendants' arguments against certification are stronger when defendants have 'shown the colour of their eyes' by pleading a defence.

While Justice Perell favoured the delivery of statements of defence before certification as a general rule, difficulties were raised in this case by the fact that the plaintiffs had claimed damages under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. The defendants argued that because the plaintiffs required leave to bring their Part XXIII.1 claims, that there was no cause of action for the defendants to defend unless and until leave had been granted.

In support of this argument, the defendants referred to the very recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Sharma v. Timminco, where the Court held that "without leave having been granted, a s. 138.3 cause of action [...] cannot be invoked as a legal right". 6 The defendants argued that an order requiring them to deliver statements of defence before leave had been granted would force them to shoot at a moving target. The defendants noted that the plaintiffs had served a substantially revised "proposed claim" (which included the Part XXIII.1 claims for which they were seeking leave) which had not yet been filed with the Court, and that further amendments would likely be made after the certification and leave motions.

Justice Perell held that these arguments were not fatal to the plaintiffs' request that the defendants deliver statements of defence before certification, but took them into account in fashioning a novel procedure. With respect to the requirement that leave be obtained under Part XXIII.1, Justice Perell held that only those defendants who contest the plaintiffs' leave motion under the Securities Act and file responding affidavit evidence under s. 138.8 of the Act are required to deliver statements of defence before certification. He held that "[d]elivering an affidavit under s. 138.8 is essentially the same as delivering a statement of claim or defence." Accordingly, "if a Defendant does deliver an affidavit, then its protest that it would be unfair to require a statement of defence loses its potency [...]".

At the same time, Justice Perell ordered that these statements of defence should respond to the plaintiffs' "proposed" statement of claim, even though leave had not yet been granted to advance the statutory secondary market claims set out in that statement of claim and despite the fact that this "proposed" claim had not yet been filed.

Though the defendants had also argued that they should not be forced to defend before having the opportunity to bring motions to strike under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Justice Perell ordered that the delivery of statements of defence would be without prejudice to the defendants' ability to subsequently move against the statement of claim. For reasons of efficiency, Justice Perell held that motions under Rule 21 should be held together with the leave and certification motions.

As a result of Justice Perell's decisions, defendants now face the prospect of having to deliver statements of defence in response to "proposed" statements of claim, before plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating that a cause of action exists.

The Leave Motion and the Certification Motion Held Together

Justice Perell ordered that the leave motion and the certification motion should be heard together. In making this order, he followed the lead of Justice Rensberg and Justice Tausendfreund in IMAX and Arctic Glacier, respectively, which were the only two prior decisions in which the court considered the leave requirement under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. Justice Perell dismissed the defendants' arguments that a joint hearing was inappropriate because the court must consider a different test on the leave motion than on the certification motion. Whatever the differences between the two tests, he held that the "evidentiary footprint" for the leave and certification motions are the same.

Given his finding that there would be no unfairness to defendants as a result of a joint hearing, the principal consideration on which Justice Perell based his order to hold the two motions together was efficiency. In particular, Justice Perell noted the prospect of delay: he stated that if the leave motion was to be heard first, then the class proceeding would be derailed because the unsuccessful party on that motion would launch an appeal that would take several years to resolve.

In practical effect, joining the two proceedings obligates defendants to prepare their certification materials on the assumption that a valid cause action exists under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. Moreover, since the plaintiffs are unable to file their statement of claim containing claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act until after leave is granted, it is unclear how the Court can be in a position to consider the plaintiffs' "proposed" statement of claim as the operative statement of claim for the certification analysis.


There has been no decision from other judges in Ontario regarding whether this early delivery of defences is appropriate or desirable. Until a uniform practice emerges or guidance is provided from an appellate court, it remains unclear as to whether statements of defence will be required before certification as a matter of course. Justice Perell's ruling in Sino-Forest acknowledges that an "across the board" requirement for delivery of statements of defence may not be appropriate in all circumstances, and particularly in the context of proposed class proceedings involving statutory secondary market claims under the Securities Act. While it remains to be seen whether the delivery of statements of defence before certification becomes the new normal practice in Ontario, defendants should anticipate being confronted with the prospect of being compelled to defend before certification.


1 Pennyfeather v. Timminco, 2011 ONSC 4257

2 Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2011 ONSC 6335

3 Silver v. Imax Corp., [2009] O.J. No. 5585

4 Dobbie v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund, 2011 ONSC 25

5 Mangan v. Inco Ltd. (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 90

6 Sharma v. Timminco, 2012 ONCA 107, para. 18

Laura Fric practices corporate-commercial civil litigation, specializing in securities litigation and defending class actions. Craig Lockwood has extensive experience in class proceedings, product liability matters, securities regulation, commercial banking litigation and pension litigation. Geoffrey Grove has experience in a range of corporate-commercial matters and securities litigation.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McMillan LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McMillan 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