In Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a class action appeal, here from "the certification of an action brought on behalf of Canadian investors who purchased cryptocurrency derivative products through an asset trading platform operated by the appellants".
Here the court considers the statutory interpretation applicable to securities (OSA) law:
[42] The OSA has been described as remedial legislation that is to be given a broad interpretation: Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc., 2007 SCC 44, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 331, at para. 32. Its stated purposes include “protection to investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices”, and the primary means for achieving this purpose include “requirements for timely, accurate and efficient disclosure of information”: OSA, s. 1.1(a) and 2.1(2)(i). The OSA “supplants the “buyer beware” mindset of the common law with compelled disclosure of relevant information”: Danier Leather, at para. 32.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
