Canada: Supreme Court Declines To Review Ontario Court Of Appeal Case Questioning Growing Trend Of Global Class Action Certification

Recent developments suggest that the ongoing success of the Canadian plaintiffs' bar in obtaining certification of global securities class actions may be illusory. On March 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal from the judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") in Kaynes v. BP, Plc, 2014 ONCA 580 ("Kaynes"). As noted by our colleagues Michael Rosenberg and Sapna Thakker in an August 2014 Canadian Class Actions Monitor blogpost, Kaynes, depending on how it is interpreted by other Canadian courts, has the potential to reverse the growing trend of global class action certification in Canada.

In Kaynes, the plaintiffs sought certification of a global securities class action alleging that BP PLC made misrepresentations in its financial statements with respect to the April 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The plaintiffs sought certification in Canada despite the fact that BP shares do not trade on a Canadian exchange. In overturning the decision of the Ontario Superior Court to certify the proposed class, the ONCA surprised observers by citing the US principle that securities litigation should take place in the forum where the related securities transaction(s) took place. This "transactional" test, firmly entrenched in the United States by the 2010 US Supreme Court ("USSC") decision Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.(Morrison), contrasts starkly with the general Canadian approach in which the holder of a foreign security may participate in a Canadian class action so long as there is a "real and substantial connection" to the applicable Canadian province. Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17. Kaynes did not reject the "real and substantial connection" test. However, Kaynes significantly limited its application by holding that, on the facts of the case, principles of international comity dictate adhering to the US standard tying jurisdiction to the place where the securities were traded.

The precise impact of Kaynes on Canadian certification standards for global securities class actions remains unclear. This article is the first in a series of blog posts in which we predict that the US style transactional test, cited with approval in Kaynes, will come to replace the "real and substantial connection" test currently in use by Canadian courts. Our prediction stems from two distinct but related ideas:

  1. the value investors place on securities class actions is increasingly in question; and
  2. the "real and substantial connection" test for securities class action certification raises significant conflicts of laws problems with our largest trading partner the United States.

Institutional Investor Behaviour in the Aftermath of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. Do Investors Actually Value Global Securities Class Actions?

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Kaynes comes at a time when academia is increasingly questioning the value of securities class actions. In January 2015, the University of Chicago Law School's Journal of Legal Studies published a paper by professor Robert P. Bartlett III which suggests that institutional investors may in fact place little value on a private right of action for securities fraud.

Bartlett's work focused on institutional investor behaviour in the aftermath of the USSC's decision in Morrison. In Morrison, the USSC limited investors' ability to bring private Rule 10b-5 securities fraud lawsuits against non-US issuers. Robert P. Bartlett III, Do Institutional Investors Value the Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action? Evidence from Investors Trading Behaviour following Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 44 J. Legal Stud. 183, 184 (2015)("Bartlett"). Prior to Morrison, private Rule 10b-5 lawsuits against non-US issuers were allowed to proceed in US courts as long as the alleged fraudulent conduct occurred in the US or produced immediate and substantive effects there. After Morrison, Rule 10b-5 will only apply with respect to the purchase or sale of a security listed on a US stock exchange or the purchase or sale of any other security within the United States.

As Bartlett explains, because the equity securities of a large number of non-US firms trade simultaneously on both US and non-US exchanges, Morrison provides a unique opportunity to test the value investors place on the Rule 10b-5 private right of action. Specifically, if investors value the Rule 10b-5 private right of action, then, in the aftermath of Morrison, one might have expected to see a shift in investment in cross-listed firms towards their US listed securities and away from their foreign listed securities. However, Bartlett found no evidence of such a shift, and instead concluded that the "Rule 10b-5 private right of action plays a remarkably small role in the trading decisions of large institutional investors."

The Limited Utility of Global Securities Class Actions is Outweighed by the Conflict of Laws Issues They Present

If it is true that investors place little value on private rights of action for securities fraud, then Canada's generous approach to global securities class actions may not be ideal. Moreover, the limited utility of expanding Canada's class action regime to incorporate securities listed on a foreign exchange is diminished by the significant conflicts of laws issues raised in doing so.

The first Canadian case to certify a truly global class was Silver v. Imax Corp, 2009 CanLII 72334 (ON SC) ("IMAX"). IMAX is a classic securities fraud case in which aggrieved shareholders initiated a class action against the defendant IMAX Corp. for allegedly overstating its revenues. In IMAX, Justice van Rensberg certified a global class of shareholders who bought IMAX Corp. shares on both the TSX and the Nasdaq. Justice van Rensberg certified the class despite the fact that 85-90% of IMAX Corp's shareholders were foreign residents and most had purchased their shares on the NASDAQ. Tanya J. Monestier, Is Canada the New Shangri-La of Global Securities Class Actions, Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 305, 337 (2012)("Monestier").

The IMAX decision stands in sharp contrast to the US Supreme Court's holding in Morrison. Whereas Morrison restricts Rule 10b-5 securities fraud lawsuits to purchases or sales of securities listed made within the US, IMAX certified a global class of IMAX Corp. securities holders, a significant majority of whom purchased their shares on a non-Canadian exchange. This generous approach to global class certification set forth in IMAX was most recently affirmed by the Ontario Superior Court on August 15, 2014, in Excalibur Special Opportunities LP v. Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP., 2014 ONSC 4118, one day after the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Kaynes.

In Is Canada the New Shangri-La of Global Securities Class Actions?, professor Tanya J Monestier discusses how Canada's generous approach to global class actions certification may lead to conflict with US courts. Monestier explains that if Canadian courts follow IMAX and continue to certify global classes based on the "real and substantial connection" test, then US claimants who purchased their securities on a US exchange may unwittingly find themselves subject to the Canadian class actions regime. This raises the odd prospect that US claimants intending to pursue a class action regarding a US security purchased on a US exchange may be foreclosed from doing so by a Canadian judgment. This in turn raises the question of whether and to what extent a US court should recognize and grant res judicata effect to a Canadian global class action judgment affecting US security holders. While we are not aware of any case to date in which a US court has directly considered this issue, Monestier explains that it is far from certain that a US court would recognize and grant res judicata effect to a Canadian global class action judgment. Indeed, a separate but related line of US cases from the 1990s and early 2000s suggests that there is a significant risk that a US court could refuse to grant res judicata effect to a Canadian global class action judgment, particularly if such a decision follows the approach set forth in IMAX.

Reasons to Doubt That a US Court Will Recognize and Give Res Judicata Effect to a Canadian Global Class Action Judgment

In Derenis v. Coopers & Lybrand Chartered Accountants, 930 F. Supp. 1003, (D.N.J. 1996)("Derenis"), a federal district court judge in New Jersey specifically addressed the question of whether it was better for a securities class action involving a Canadian company whose securities traded on a US exchange to be decided in a Canadian or US court. In Derenis, the plaintiffs brought a securities class action against the International Nesmont Industrial Corporation ("Nesmont"). Nesmont was incorporated in British Columbia and had its principal office in that province. While Nesmont was listed on the Vancouver stock exchange, the bulk of trading in Nesmont's securities took place on the NASDAQ. The plaintiffs brought a securities class action alleging that Nesmont had submitted misleading financial statements to the SEC and thus defrauded thousands of US investors. The defendants in the action sought to have the case removed to Canada. In rejecting the defendants' request, the Derenis court held that regardless of whether Canada was an appropriate alternative forum for hearing the dispute, public interest factors required that the case be heard within the United States.

Among the factors listed by the Derenis court were two which foreshadow the holding of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaynes and therefore may prove relevant to a US court deciding whether to give a Canadian global class action judgment res judicata effect. First, the Derenis court found that US investors have a strong interest in seeing disputes involving United States securities laws settled by a US court. Notably, the Derenis court acknowledged that Canada has an interest in regulating the conduct of corporate entities registered within its borders, but found that the "United States interest in [protecting] the integrity of both domestic investor decision making and market mechanisms is overriding." Secondly, the Derenis court held that the longstanding US principal of avoiding unnecessary conflicts of laws weighed in favour of hearing the Nesmont class action within the United States. Noting that the action was brought with respect to United States securities laws, the Derenis court concluded that US securities laws would govern the dispute. Since US law must govern, the Derenis court concluded that the only logical venue for a hearing was the United States.

The views expressed by the Derenis court were subsequently embraced by the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals in DiRenzo v. Philip Servs. Corp. 294 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2002) ("DiRenzo"). In DiRenzo, the plaintiffs were US securities holders who brought a class action alleging securities fraud against the directors and officers Philip Services Corporation ("Philip"), a Canadian company. As in Derenis, the defendants argued that Canada was a more appropriate forum for the litigation to take place, and brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on grounds of forum non conveniens. The Second Circuit rejected the defendants' motion finding that regardless of whether Canada was an appropriate forum, the United States' interest in the integrity of its securities laws weighed overwhelmingly in favour of US jurisdiction. In particular, the DiRenzo court noted that "the majority of [Philip's] securities transactions were conducted entirely within the United States, by Americans, in American dollars, on American stock exchanges." Therefore, although Canada was an appropriate forum to hear the dispute, the Second Circuit determined that the United States was a better location for the matter's resolution.

In IMAX, the Ontario Superior Court decided that a global securities class action involving transactions which mainly took place on a US exchange could go forward in Canada. This decision contrasts sharply with the logic of the decisions in Derenis and DiRenzo. By contrast, the decision in Kaynes is broadly congruent with US law. In a fashion similar to the decisions in Derenis and DiRenzo, the Kaynes court concluded that while Canada may be an appropriate forum, the United States was a better venue for the resolution of the plaintiff's claims because the relevant securities transactions primarily took place on a US exchange. Therefore, while IMAX is in direct conflict with the limited body of US case law relating to Canadian class action certification decisions, Kaynes is broadly congruent with it.

Conclusions and Next Steps

It is too early to tell whether the IMAX approach to global class action certification or the Kaynes approach to global class action certification will prevail in Canada. In our next post we will discuss in detail the growing body of academic research which questions the value of private rights of action for securities fraud in the global context. As we shall see, the development of this body of research raises important questions for both investors and issuers regarding the best approach to take in resolving disputes regarding financial statements.

To view 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.

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