Canada: Ontario Court Of Appeal Turns Against Cross-Border Securities Class Actions

In the recent decision of Kaynes v. BP, PLC, 2014 ONCA 580, the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed a proposed secondary market securities class action on the basis of forum non conveniens.  Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal, Sharpe J.A. found that Ontario could assume jurisdiction over claims by Canadian residents who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges.  Nevertheless, he held that Ontario should decline jurisdiction on the basis that foreign courts were better positioned to decide claims arising from transactions on foreign exchanges.

Kaynes puts a damper on Ontario's recent enthusiasm for global securities class actions.  Whereas the province once seemed destined to become a "Shang-ri-la" for cross-border litigation, global claims will now be subjected to closer scrutiny as courts ponder whether the matter should be adjudicated elsewhere.

At the very least, this is a welcome development for foreign and cross-listed issuers, who have long felt that founding a global class on a tenuous connection to Ontario is, to use the words of Sharpe J.A., "both opportunistic and a classic example of the 'tail wagging the dog'".

The broader question is whether Kaynes closes the door on any claims arising from transactions on foreign exchanges.  If it does, then the Ontario Court of Appeal has fundamentally altered the course of cross-border securities class actions.  Given its potentially far-reaching implications, Kaynes will be a decision to watch.

Stretching the long arm of Ontario jurisdiction

A brief review of the facts will help to put Kaynes in context.  The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations in public disclosure relating to an oil spill at BP, PLC's Deep Water Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico.  In turn, the plaintiff sought leave to commence a class proceeding under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, to recover the losses incurred by BP's shareholders.  BP brought a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, which was heard before the motion for leave to proceed with the class action.

From the outset, it seemed as though there was little reason to litigate this claim in Ontario.  BP is a UK company with its principal offices in London, England. BP's common shares are listed on the London Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and its American Depository Shares ("ADS") are available on the New York Stock Exchange.  While small volumes of BP's ADS once traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, they were delisted before BP made the alleged misrepresentations.  Moreover, the proposed representative plaintiff purchased his shares on the NYSE.

The plaintiff's jurisdictional "hook" lay in the fact that BP was required to provide its Canadian shareholders with the same disclosure materials that it circulated to their American counterparts.  The plaintiff argued that the misrepresentation took place in Ontario when BP delivered its disclosure materials.  On this basis, the plaintiff sought to advance a class action on behalf of all Canadian residents who had purchased BP shares during the relevant period, regardless of where those shares were purchased.

An initial embrace of the global class

At first instance, Conway J. dismissed BP's jurisdictional motion.  Applying the test articulated in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Her Honour found that there was a "real and substantial connection" between the province and the plaintiff's claim.  Conway J. reached this conclusion by classifying the claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act as a statutory tort.  Her Honour then determined that the place or situs of the tort at common law was where the misrepresentation was received and relied upon.  Because the claim under the Securities Act does not require the investor to prove reliance, however, Conway J. held that the statutory tort is committed in Ontario when the issuer merely makes a misrepresentation to an Ontario resident.

On this basis, Conway J. rejected BP's argument that the class should be limited to the small number of plaintiffs who purchased their shares on the TSX.  On the contrary; Her Honour concluded that the place of purchase was irrelevant.

Conway J. also rejected BP's argument that Ontario should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that the UK and US courts were more appropriate fora in which to litigate the claims of the proposed class.  Her Honour reasoned that (a) an Ontario action would be inevitable, (b) it would be premature to say that the parallel US proceeding would be certified, and (c) UK procedure would not permit the plaintiffs to commence a class action.

A return to common sense

On appeal, Sharpe J.A. agreed that Ontario could assume jurisdiction over the claims of Canadian residents who purchased shares on foreign exchanges.  Although any contractual claims would have arisen in the jurisdiction where the shares were purchased, the Court of Appeal accepted that the alleged misrepresentation took place in Ontario when BP knowingly distributed the impugned disclosure to Ontario residents.  As a presumptive connecting factor under Van Breda, the location of the tort was sufficient to ground Ontario jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal found that Conway J. had erred in rejecting BP's argument for forum non conveniens.  In reaching this conclusion, Sharpe J.A. focused on the principle of comity.  His Honour found that both US and UK law limit misrepresentation claims to the jurisdiction in which shares were purchased.  His Honour further noted that the US district courts claim exclusive jurisdiction over misrepresentation claims under US securities law.  Indeed, Sharpe J.A. noted that there was a proposed class proceeding in the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all those who purchased shares on the NYSE.

In these circumstances, Sharpe J.A. found that "[o]rder and fairness will be achieved by adhering to the prevailing international standard tying jurisdiction to the place where the securities were traded and a multiplicity of proceedings involving the same claims or class of claims will be avoided."  In the result, His Honour reasoned that Canadian residents who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges would hardly be surprised that their claims would be determined in the jurisdiction of purchase.

In the final arithmetic, the Court of Appeal stayed the action.  However, BP had conceded that Ontario was the appropriate forum for the resolution of claims by the small number of TSX ADS purchasers.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal granted leave to amend so as to advance a claim on behalf of these plaintiffs.

A new approach to cross-border securities class actions?

Some will discount Kaynes on the basis of its peculiar facts.  They will note that BP had no contacts with Ontario, other than its obligation to circulate continuous disclosure.  It is certainly more common to see claims against issuers with stronger ties to the jurisdiction, such as a local head office or an active cross-listing on the TSX.  Additionally, some will focus on the fact that a parallel class proceeding had been commenced in the US, suggesting that NYSE purchasers, at least, might have their claims adjudicated in another forum.  Although the proposed Ontario class definition excluded plaintiffs who did not opt out of the Texas action, the fact of a parallel proceeding was difficult to ignore.

Nevertheless, these peculiarities do not explain the result in Kaynes.  BP's contacts with Ontario spoke only to the question of establishing jurisdiction simpliciter.  Ontario might have more readily assumed jurisdiction over the matter if BP's contacts were stronger, but it was sufficient that the misrepresentation was made in Ontario.  As framed by the Court of Appeal, Kaynes was not a case about whether Ontario could assume jurisdiction, but whether it should do so.

Likewise, the existence of a parallel proceeding is not determinative.  Admittedly, Sharpe J.A. found that "[w]hat should be avoided is litigation in more than one jurisdiction over the same claims of the same parties".  However, His Honour also noted that purchasers on UK and European exchanges would not have the benefit of any class proceeding, and no parallel litigation had been commenced in those jurisdictions.  His Honour further noted that the Texas action had not yet been certified, and indeed, certification had been denied at first instance.

Because the Court of Appeal stayed the claims of all those who purchased shares on foreign exchanges, and not simply those who purchased on the NYSE, the decision in Kaynes cannot have turned on the existence of a parallel proceeding.

Stripping away the peculiar facts of this case, what remains is an apparent embrace of the American model of exchange-based jurisdiction over securities claims.  In this sense, Kaynes represents a bold judicial stroke.  As Sharpe J.A. notes, the bar on extraterritorial securities claims in the US and the UK is a creature of statute.  By contrast, Sharpe J.A. accepted that Ontario's Securities Act permits claims arising from foreign transactions.  Thus, the decision to decline jurisdiction in Kaynes was based not on statute, but on the principle of comity among nations.

Only time will tell whether Kaynes has sounded the death knell for global securities class actions in Ontario courts.  Certainly, this decision appears to be inconsistent with the earlier holdings in cases like Silver v. Imax Corporation, 2009 CanLII 72334 (Ont. S.C.J.), and Abdula v. Canadian Solar Inc., 2012 ONCA 211, where Ontario readily assumed jurisdiction over claims arising from transactions on foreign exchanges.  It is hard to see how these earlier decisions can be squared with the "prevailing international standard tying jurisdiction to the place where the securities were traded", to use the phrasing of Sharpe J.A.

It is possible that the importance of Kaynes will be minimized by a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, or by subsequent decisions that confine its scope.  At present, however, we may be witnessing the backswing of the pendulum in a jurisdiction that had once seemed so welcoming to cross-border securities class actions.

Case Information

Kaynes v. BP, PLC, 2014 ONCA 580

Date: 2014-08-14

Docket: C57876

To view the original article please click here.

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.