Sentences with phrase «part xxiii»

Keywords: Securities, Misrepresentation, Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5, Part XXIII.1, ss.

The amendments have been incorporated into the online version of Ontario's Securities Act, and can be found at Part XXIII.1.

Both judges drew particular attention to the decision of Lax J. in Ainslie v. CV Technologies (2008), 93 O.R. (3d) 200 (S.C.J.), one of the first actions brought under Part XXIII.1 of the Act.

In Dugai, the plaintiff investors proposed a class action alleging inadequacies in the defendant corporation's Risk Management Policies and Practices, including a cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Act (for which they require leave under s. 138.8 (1)-RRB-.

[2] Part XXIII.1 OSA provides, at s. 138.3, for a claim for secondary market misrepresentation.

[1] These appeals are the result of competing interpretations of the interaction between two pieces of Ontario legislation: Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5 («OSA»), and s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 («CPA»).

Minimum punishment (2) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment.

Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, which created a statutory cause of action for misrepresentation available to purchasers of securities on the secondary market (i.e. a stock market), was enacted more than... [more]

At that time, few would have predicted that the most troublesome and litigated section in Part XXIII.1 would be the section (s. 138.14) that created a seemingly simple three year limitation period after a public company's alleged misrepresentation was released within which to advance claims.

Justice Perell cited three instances of when a foreign company might be a «responsible issuer» under Part XXIII.1: (1) Where the foreign corporation's securities trade in Ontario's secondary market; (2) Where the foreign corporation's securities trade on secondary markets in both Ontario and a foreign jurisdiction; and (3) Where the foreign corporation's securities do not trade in Ontario, but the corporation otherwise has a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The portion of the action that sought to claim on behalf of investors in the secondary market under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act was dismissed outright.

Because the existence of a «responsible issuer» is a basic requirement for a claim under Part XXIII.1, Justice Perell dismissed that portion of the claim entirely.

Yip and his counsel sought to bring a class action in Ontario for both common law misrepresentation and under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, on behalf of worldwide holders of HSBC securities.

It is one of the great rights in trials at common law preserved in Part XXIII of the Code.

It may be recalled that in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada found that s. 138.14 of the Securities Act is an event triggered limitation period, which runs from the making of an oral statement or the release of an impugned document without regard to a claimant's knowledge of the facts giving rise to a statutory cause of action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

«My colleague's interpretation effectively bars Part XXIII.1 from fulfilling either of its goals; it can neither facilitate access to justice for investors nor deter corporate misconduct,» she wrote.

Justice Perell reconfirmed that the statutory cause of action under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act for secondary market misrepresentation applies extra-territorially to trades on foreign stock exchanges when Ontario has a real and substantial connection to a foreign defendant.

Meanwhile, in August of 2015, Mr. Paniccia, a retail investor with a much smaller stake in MDC's common shares, commenced a proposed securities class action against MDC and certain of its officers in Ontario under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5.

If there was going to be a trial of those claims anyways (assuming leave to proceed under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act was granted), the defendants» forum non conveniens arguments were less compelling.

Not exact matches

He has since given many signs of his support for the present pope; when many of his episcopal brethren were doing everything they could to undermine the motu proprio establishing the right to celebrate the «old Mass», he made clear his belief that the rite of John XXIII «is not a relic, not a reverting to the past, but part of the living tradition of the Church».»