LANDRY v AURORA CANNABIS INC

The Appellants appealed a Case Management Judge’s dismissal of their Application to strike an Amended Statement of Claim in a proposed Class Action. In the alternative, they appealed the dismissal of their Application to disallow the addition of a second proposed representative Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 3.64, and to strike various amendments to the pleadings.

On the issue of striking, pursuant to Rule 3.68, the Appellants argued that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process because the original representative Plaintiff, Robert Landry (“Landry”), was not a member of either the proposed statutory or common-law classes. They further argued that Landry’s negligent misrepresentation claim was untenable because he could not establish reliance on the alleged misrepresentations or resulting damages.

Applying the principle that pleadings must be read generously and that pleaded facts are assumed to be true on an Application to strike, the Court held that it was not plain and obvious that he fell outside the proposed classes or that his claims were doomed to fail. The Court further held that issues relating to reliance, damages, and the ultimate merits of the negligent misrepresentation claim should be determined at the certification or trial stage, rather than on a striking Application.

On the issue of the second proposed representative Plaintiff, the Appellants argued that the claim was statute barred pursuant to the limitation period under the Securities Act, RSA 2000, c S-4. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the limitation periods applicable to both the statutory and common-law claims had been suspended by the tolling provision under the Securities Act and the limitation rules under the Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5. It remained within the applicable limitation period to be add a second representative Plaintiff.

In the result, the Court dismissed the Appeal, allowing the Class Action to proceed.