Canada: Litigation: Decisions Affecting The Canadian Landscape

The OSC Clarifies the Rules Applicable in Contested Take-over Bids

The recent decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission and the Ontario Divisional Court in In the Matter of Sears Canada Inc. et al. provide valuable guidance regarding the interpretation of the rules governing take-over bids in Canada, the protection of minority shareholders in the context of take-over bids, and the circumstances in which regulatory intervention is likely to be triggered.

In December 2005, Sears Holdings Corporation announced its offer to acquire the 46% of outstanding shares of Sears Canada Inc. that it did not already own. Sears Holdings also announced its intention to take Sears Canada private pursuant to a second-step going private transaction, for which "majority of the minority" shareholder approval was required.

Following the launch of its take-over bid, Sears Holdings entered into support agreements with various Canadian banks, pursuant to which the banks agreed to support the going private transaction and Sears Holdings agreed to restructure its bid to allow the banks to realize certain tax benefits. Sears Holdings also entered into an agreement with Vornado Realty, a significant shareholder of Sears Canada, pursuant to which Vornado agreed to deposit its Sears Canada shares to a revised offer at an increased price in exchange for price protection and a release from any litigation claims. Sears Holdings also took various other steps aimed at securing the success of its bid, including announcing that it would support the elimination of Sears Canada's practice of paying quarterly dividends if its bid was unsuccessful.

On April 6, 2006, Sears Holdings announced that it had acquired the requisite shareholder approval for the going private transaction. In response, three institutional shareholders of Sears Canada, who were represented by Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, filed complaints with the OSC opposing the transaction on the basis that Sears Holdings had violated applicable disclosure obligations and engaged in price manipulation and other abusive tactics.

Key Findings of the OSC

Among other things, the OSC found that Sears Holdings failed to fulfil its disclosure obligations, granted improper collateral benefits and employed coercive and abusive tactics. As a result, the OSC made an order cease trading Sears Holdings' bid until its take-over bid circular was amended to disclose the terms of both the support agreements with the banks and the Vornado release. The OSC also ordered that the shares of the banks and Vornado be excluded from the "majority of the minority" vote and that a release identical to Vornado's be granted to all shareholders tendering to the bid. The findings of the OSC in respect of various key issues are discussed below.

Disclosure Requirements - In finding that Sears Holdings' disclosure did not comply with applicable securities law, the OSC distinguished between disclosure which strictly follows the technical requirements of the applicable rules and disclosure that may be material to an investor's decision to tender its shares to a take-over bid. In this light, the OSC criticized Sears Holdings' failure to comply with the spirit and intent of its disclosure obligations, i.e., to protect the rights and interests of minority shareholders in circumstances involving related party transactions. The OSC was particularly troubled by Sears Holdings' failure to disclose the existence of the Vornado release and the support agreements, the identity of the counterparties to the support agreements and the price protection granted to another shareholder. The OSC further found that Sears Holdings' decisions with respect to disclosure were made for tactical purposes aimed at advancing its own selfinterest rather than ensuring that the investing public received proper and timely disclosure.

Collateral Benefits - The OSC found that the Vornado release was a collateral benefit granted in violation of the prohibition in securities law against providing one shareholder greater consideration for its shares than that offered to the other shareholders. Significantly, the release was found to be improper despite the fact that Sears Holdings did not attach any value to it (as Sears Holdings did not believe that any private cause of action existed against Vornado). With respect to the support agreements, the OSC concluded that because the agreements were designed to satisfy the specific tax objectives of particular shareholders in preference to other shareholders, they also violated the prohibition against collateral benefits.

Coercive and/or Abusive Conduct - The OSC further found that certain aspects of Sears Holdings' conduct was unfair, coercive and abusive. Such conduct included Sears Holdings' threat to eliminate the payment of dividends and its attempt to impugn the good faith of Sears Canada's independent directors.

Appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court

On September 19, 2006, the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed Sears Holdings' appeal of the OSC's decision. The Court's decision was released on October 11, 2006. The Court found that the OSC had engaged in a careful and thorough consideration of all the evidence. The Court was unable to conclude that any finding of the OSC was not arrived at reasonably.

The decisions of the OSC and the Divisional Court will have significant implications for the conduct of mergers and acquisition practice in Canada. Indeed, in the context of take-over bids, the decisions highlight the critical importance of treating all target shareholders equally and ensuring that benefits granted to particular shareholders are, at the very least, publicly disclosed in a manner that protects the rights and interests of all minority shareholders. Moreover, in respect of disclosure obligations, the decisions underscore the need for companies to comply not only with the technical requirements of securities law, but with the spirit and intent of the governing rules.

Class Actions

The growing prominence of class actions in the Canadian litigation landscape witnessed over the past several years continued apace in 2006, with larger, more ambitious actions alleging novel grounds for suit being brought in all of the major class actions jurisdictions (Ontario, Québec and British Columbia). However, along with the increased litigation risk associated with an emboldened Plaintiffs' class actions bar, several judgments of interest were issued in 2006 that may bring some relief to defendants, and possibly even slow the pace of growth of what has come to be pejoratively known as the "class actions industry".

Over the past few years Canada has seen its fair share of "industry" class actions, whereby a plaintiff seeks to institute a class action against a number of companies that operate in the same industry despite the fact that the class petitioner had no relationship (for example, a contract) with each of the named defendants. Typically, the plaintiff will allege some kind of specific fault or misconduct as against one primary defendant, and then name every other player in the same industry as a defendant to the class action, usually on the basis of a generic allegation that all companies in the industry operate using identical business practices as the primary defendant. Being able to launch industry-wide class actions naming, in many cases, dozens of companies, based on no direct evidence or factual allegation of wrongdoing beyond the primary defendant has been a powerful tool in the hands of entrepreneurial plaintiffs' counsel.

In Ontario, it had been decided as early as 2000 that the representative plaintiff(s) in a class action must have a cause of action against every one of the named defendants, frustrating the "industry" class action, at least in that province. British Columbia courts have taken the opposite approach based on a reading of that province's class action legislation, to the effect that "industry" class actions are explicitly permitted there.

Superior Court decisions in Québec, a jurisdiction which has acquired a reputation as being strongly pro-plaintiff, had followed the British Columbia approach and allowed suits to proceed against multiple defendants where the class plaintiff had no cause of action against all of them, until the 2004 decision of the Québec Superior Court in Bouchard v. Agropur. In that case, the plaintiff sought authorization to sue a group of Québec dairies on the basis that the fat content of the milk they sold to consumers was slightly below the percentage listed on the container. However, the plaintiff had only purchased milk processed by one dairy, and therefore had no cause of action against any of the other named defendants. The Québec Superior Court dismissed the proposed $89 million class action and held that the fact that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action against a number of the respondent companies was fatal to his claim against them.

However, not six months later, in the case of Billette v. Toyota Canada Inc. et al., a different judge of the Québec Superior Court, relying on previous decisions that had authorized class actions against companies in respect of which the petitioner had no cause of action, authorized a class action against 19 car manufacturers and related finance companies despite the fact that the petitioner had only contracted with one manufacturer. Given the obvious confusion in the courts below, the Québec Court of Appeal was asked to decide the matter on an appeal of the initial decision in Agropur.

On appeal of the Superior Court decision in Agropur, the Québec Court of Appeal decisively put an end to this controversial issue and held that an individual who seeks to institute a class action against a number of companies must have a cause of action against each of them. The Court of Appeal noted that the requisite interest to bring an ordinary action was equally applicable to class actions and it rejected the appellant's submissions that Québec's class action rules did not require that a petitioner have a cause of action against each respondent and that the necessary interest to sue should not be measured based on his individual action, but rather in light of the collective nature of the relief sought on behalf of the proposed class. The Court of Appeal also reaffirmed the principle that before a class action is authorized it does not exist on a collective basis and that the proposed action of the individual plaintiff must satisfy the requisite statutory criteria before the class action will be authorized, which includes that the plaintiff establish that the facts alleged justify the conclusions sought against all of the defendants.

Of the major class actions jurisdictions in Canada, British Columbia is now alone in permitting "industry" class actions.

A Revolution in the Law of Costs Payable by Losing Defendants

Another often overlooked development of interest, in litigation generally and specifically in the class actions field, is the October 13, 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Walker v. Ritchie, which may prove to have a lasting impact on the amount of legal fees that plaintiff's counsel may claim, which is often a driving force behind such actions. That case concerned the appeal of a costs award in a personal injury case and raised the question of the appropriateness of risk premiums awarded to counsel who take on contingency cases for impecunious plaintiffs, and the extent to which these risk premiums should be paid by losing defendants. At trial, plaintiff's counsel had been awarded a premium of $192,600 on top of a fees award of $577,879.69. The premium was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the premium, holding that risk premiums payable by unsuccessful defendants run contrary to the intentions of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario).

By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that fee awards payable by defendants to the counsel of successful plaintiffs should not incorporate any factor or premium in respect of the risk faced by plaintiffs' counsel in taking on the case. The Court went on to challenge the usual justification for the awarding of risk premiums, namely that they supposedly promote access to justice for impecunious plaintiffs who would otherwise never get their "day in court", holding that "the appropriate source of encouragement lies with the client not with his or her opponent" and that requiring unsuccessful defendants to pay a premium to the plaintiffs was not compelled on the theory of promoting access to justice.

This decision is important across all fields of civil litigation, but particularly so in class actions, since plaintiffs' counsel are nearly always compensated on a contingency basis, or based on the rules governing fee awards in the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, or analogous statutes in the other provinces. The removal of any consideration of risk in awarding such fees to plaintiffs' counsel may undermine the economic incentive for launching class actions, thereby moderating their growth. It is important to emphasize, however, that the Supreme Court decision in Walker v. Ritchie was rendered in the context of a personal injury suit, not a class action, and it therefore remains to be seen whether the principles enunciated in that context have a broader application, or will subsequently be restricted to the facts of that case.

Enforcement of Non-Monetary Foreign Judgments in Canada

In its recent landmark decision in Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada held that the traditional common law rule prohibiting the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments no longer applies in Canada. The Supreme Court's decision will likely have significant implications for cross-border commerce, ecommerce and litigation, and may open the door to the enforcement of foreign equitable orders such as injunctions.

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. involved an appeal by the plaintiff, Pro Swing, in a foreign trade-mark infringement proceeding from a decision refusing to enforce a foreign consent decree and contempt order in Ontario. The defendant, Elta Golf, had been selling goods that resembled those of the plaintiff. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which was endorsed by a consent decree of the U.S. District Court, prohibiting Elta Golf from infringing Pro Swing's trademark. Pro Swing subsequently obtained a contempt order against Elta Golf for violating the consent decree, and filed a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for recognition and enforcement of the consent decree and the contempt order. The motions judge held that the decree and certain parts of the contempt order were enforceable in Ontario. The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the motion judge's decision, holding that both orders were unenforceable in Ontario, as they were ambiguous in respect of material matters and, in particular, with respect to the scope of their extraterritorial application. Pro Swing appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 17, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision. The Court unanimously held that the common law rule prohibiting the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments was no longer good law in Canada. However, the Court split over whether the foreign orders at issue in this case should be enforced. The majority of the Court held that although the traditional common law rule should be changed, the consent decree and contempt order in this particular case were not enforceable in Ontario because, among other things: (i) the contempt order was quasi-criminal in nature and Canadian courts will not enforce a penal order; (ii) the different nature of contempt orders in Canada meant that litigants could be exposed to consequences to which they would not be exposed under the foreign law; (iii) the territorial scope of the consent decree was unclear; (iv) recognition and enforcement of the judgment was not the most appropriate judicial tool in the circumstances; and (v) the contempt order required disclosure of personal information.

While the implications of the Supreme Court's decision are potentially vast, the Court did not specifically address certain issues that will be of critical importance in the future. For example, will new and/or expanded defences to enforcement be necessary to ensure that foreign judgments do not conflict with domestic law? What specific test (if any) will be applied by the courts when determining whether to enforce a foreign nonmonetary judgment? Moreover, what are the implications of the requirement that foreign judgments be clear and specific for those who, like Pro Swing, seek to enforce foreign consent orders which may have different meanings to the opposing parties? These and other issues, including the scope of the change to the common law rule, the relative weight to be afforded to each of the considerations set out by the Court and the impact of any additional considerations, remain to be determined in subsequent cases.

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.