Introduction

AuthorHarvey T Strosberg, QC
Pages1-3
1
INTRODUCTION
This issue of the CCAR i ncludes our 2017 Strosberg Prize-winni ng paper
by Madeleine Brown, several other interesting Strosberg Prize submis-
sions, and a case commentary. We’re so pleased that there are so many
great papers in t his issue, and as always, we are gratef ul to our wonderful
contributor s.
In “Questions About Leave Test for Secondary Ma rket Claims Rema in
Unanswered after Court of Appeal Decision in Ra himi v SouthGobi Resour-
ces Ltd,” Byron Shaw provides a cas e commentary on the Court of Appeal’s
recent decision in Rahimi v SouthGobi Resources Ltd. In t his decision, the
court reversed a decision denying leave under section 138.8(1) of the
Ontario Securities Act against individual defendants (who were former
executives and directors of the issuer) based on the reasonable investi-
gation defence. Shaw argues that the practical and legal is sues that the
Supreme Court failed to adequately addre ss in Theratechnologies Inc v
121851 Canada Inc and Canadian Imper ial Bank of Commerce v Green re-
main — and are now perhaps even murkier — as a result of the Court of
Appeal’s decision in Rahimi.
In “Case Review of Decertif‌ication Motions in Clas s Proceedings,”
Melanie Ouanounou provides an overview of the test for decert if‌ication
and reviews recent inst ances in which decertif‌ication motions have been
successfully us ed in Canada where new evidence, subsequent fact s, or de-
velopments have arisen a fter certif‌ication. Her article also h ighlights cer-
tain cas es where courts, instead of granti ng decertif‌ication, have adopted
alternative measures to address the concerns raised by the defendants.
Paul-Erik Veel and Graham Henry discuss the oft-mentioned Airia
Brand s case in “Absent Foreign Claimants in Canadian Class Actions:
Where to after Air ia Brands?” They begin by a sking, “if a tort is com-
mitted on an international scale, when can a Canadian court as sume
jurisdiction in a class proceeding over class members who reside out-
side of Canada?” and examine how the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent
decision in Airia Brands Inc v Air Canada provided a new framework for
answering t his question but, in doing so, expanded Ontario’s jurisdic-
tion over absent foreign claima nts to untenably broad levels. The authors

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT