On March 27, 2011 Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice granted a consent motion in Sorenson v. easyhome Ltd. for
certification of the action as a class action and leave to advance
a claim against easyhome Ltd. and its CEO and President, its Senior
Vice President, and its Chief Financial Officer (as they were
during the relevant period). The motion also included the
consent dismissal of a parallel action against certain other
The action is in respect of a material fraud in easyhome
Ltd.'s related loan business that required a restatement of
certain of its financial results. The consent motion is a
result of an agreement negotiated by the parties after the motion
for leave to commence the secondary market claim was served.
The Defendants have reserved their rights with respect to
limitation period defences, notwithstanding certification of the
Class Period as April 8, 2008 to October 14, 2010. The common
issues include whether some or all of the named disclosure
documents of easyhome Ltd. contained a misrepresentation and if so,
whether any of the Defendants are liable to any Class Members
pursuant to Section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act(OSA) or
the analogous provisions of the securities legislation of the other
Canadian jurisdictions. If the answer to that question is
yes, a subsequent common issue includes what damages are payable by
each such Defendant in respect of that liability pursuant to s.
138.5 of the OSA. The final common issue includes
whether the Defendants should pay the cost of administering and
distributing the recovery and if so, which Defendants should pay,
and how much.
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
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).