(emphasis added). The emphasized words are critical to this
decision. It is common ground that HSBC Holdings is not a
 Mr. Yip argues that even though HSBC Holdings is not
a reporting issuer, as an issuer whose securities are publicly
traded (although not in Canada), it is a responsible issuer under
para. (b) of the definition in s. 138.1 and in light of this court’s
ruling in Abdula v. Canadian Solar Inc. (2012), 110 O.R. (3d) 256,
 O.J. No. 1381, 2012 ONCA 211, leave to appeal to S.C.C.
refused  S.C.C.A. No. 246. He urges this court to find specifically that “[a]n issuer that knows or ought to know that its
investor information is being made available to Canadian investors has a securities regulatory nexus” with Ontario sufficient to
establish the real and substantial connection under part (b) of the
definition for a responsible issuer in s. 138.1. Mr. Yip submits that
this would be a purposive interpretation consistent with the
Securities Act’s goal of protecting investors from fraudulent practices. In the alternative, the appellant submits that this court
should identify a new presumptive connecting factor for cases of
secondary market misrepresentation.
 The appellant’s proposed wording deliberately tracks the
language of Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd.,  1 S.C.R.
393,  S.C.J. No. 149, a products liability tort action,
in which the expression, “real and substantial connection”, was
first used by the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Dickson formulated a rule Mr. Yip argues should apply to his case, with necessary modifications. To paraphrase Moran, at p. 409 S.C.R.:
Where the misrepresentation made “in a foreign jurisdiction”
then “enters into the normal channels of trade” in circumstances
and the issuer “knows or ought to know both that” an investor
“may well be injured and it is reasonably foreseeable” that the
misrepresentation will be acted upon, “then the forum in which
the plaintiff suffered damage is entitled to exercise judicial jurisdiction over that foreign defendant”.
 The evidence upon which Mr. Yip relies to meet his proposed test is that HSBC Holdings released documents containing
misrepresentations, authorized its subsidiary HSBC Canada to
make available on its website the HSBC Holdings’ documents,
and authorized Mr. Bagley to make public oral misrepresentations. Mr. Yip asserts that HSBC Holdings must have known that
people like him and the putative class members would access the
information and use it to their detriment.
 Accordingly, Mr. Yip argues that the motion judge erred in
declaring that HSBC Holdings is not a responsible issuer as
defined in s. 138.1 of the Securities Act because it does not have