Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Court Confirms No Need for Defendants to Lead Evidence in Motion for Leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act

By Michael Beeforth
January 22, 2013
  • Securities Litigation
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In the recent decision of Dugai, Murphy v. Manulife Financial Corporation (2013 ONSC 327), the Divisional Court confirmed the principle that defendants have no obligation to lead evidence on a motion for leave to assert a cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under s. 138.8(1) of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 (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)). After being advised that the defendants did not intend to file any affidavits on the leave motion (currently scheduled for March 2013), the plaintiffs summoned two Manulife employees under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to provide relevant evidence for use during the leave motion. The defendants brought a motion to quash the summonses, and the plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to compel the defendants to file affidavits. Belobaba J. granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the cross-motion; the plaintiffs sought leave to appeal in the Divisional Court.

In upholding Belobaba J.’s decision and dismissing the plaintiffs’ application, Harvison Young J. agreed with his analysis that the two issues on motion – whether defendants are required to serve and file affidavits on a s. 138.1 motion, and the availability of Rule 39.03 summmonses in such circumstances – have already been fully adjudicated. 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 Ainslie, FMC’s Robb Heintzman and Matthew Fleming successfully argued that the Act only requires a defendant to file an affidavit where it intends to lead evidence in response to a leave motion, and that allowing the plaintiffs to examine the defendants in the absence of such affidavit evidence would amount to an abuse of process, as it would afford the plaintiffs greater rights of discovery than in an action where it is unnecessary to obtain leave.

Harvison Young J. concluded that the number of recent cases which accepted and applied the reasoning in Ainslie “overwhelming supports the motion judge’s interpretation of s. 138.8 that it does not require the defendants to deliver affidavits or to be subjected to cross examination when they do not intend to lead evidence in response to the leave motion”.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Michael Beeforth

About Michael Beeforth

Mike is a commercial litigator and a partner in Dentons' Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. Mike has particular expertise in advising clients in the financial services industry, having spent 18 months seconded to a large Canadian bank where he managed litigation for the bank's capital markets, wealth management and treasury services businesses.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Securities Litigation

Deloitte & Touche Inc. Seeks to Discontinue Class Action Against Bre-X Principals

By Michael Beeforth
  • General
  • Securities Litigation

Capital Markets Tribunal dismisses Ontario Securities Commission enforcement proceedings against parties involved in complex capital-raising transactions

By Brandon Barnes Trickett and Samantha Chang
  • Securities Litigation

Court reconsiders the role of “public corrections” in securities class actions

By Matthew Fleming

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site