What is the difference between a common law misrepresentation and a statutory remedy for misrepresentation in the secondary securities market?

Kinross is distinguishable for several reasons. First, as I have noted, the action was for both the statutory remedy for misrepresentation in the secondary securities market and for common law misrepresentation. It has often been noted that securities cases frequently present difficulties in class actions, hence the statutory remedy, which obviates the need to prove reliance: see Green v. CIBC at paras. 595, 610-611. This court noted in Kinross that proof of reliance, causation and damages would pose particular difficulties, making it necessary to answer numerous investor-specific questions related to multiple representations, investors’ sophistication and investment advice, dates of acquisition and prices. This court considered that the host of individual inquiries would make the common law claims unsuitable for certification.