A downward trend in the performance of a business caused by
a significant disruption or interference in the ongoing business
operations is a material change, but a downward trend without
more is not a material change requiring disclosure.
 In the context of a motion for leave to pursue a statutory
cause of action, a company’s restatement of its financial statements is an acknowledgment by the company that it has made
material misrepresentations in relation to its audited financial
statements that justifies granting leave to bring a statutory cause
of action.25 In the context of a motion for leave to pursue a statutory cause of action, the absence of a restatement, an acknowledgement, a criminal or regulatory finding, or a qualified audit
report, the plaintiffs must adduce some evidence to show that
they have a reasonable prospect of successfully demonstrating at
trial that the defendants misled the market by publishing an
untrue statement of material fact or by failing to disclose a material
change on a timely basis.26
 In Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers),27
information contained in drilling results regarding a mining company’s exploration site was held capable of being a material change.
In the same case, the Supreme Court held that the failure to disclose the details of a private placement in which the issuer would
increase its control of an associated corporation was a material
change that ought to have been disclosed. The court also held that
depending on the circumstances, a contractual dispute with a trade
debtor of the issuer could constitute a material change affecting
the business, operations, ownership or affairs of a reporting issuer.
 In Rex Diamond Mining Corp. (Re),28 the Ontario Securities
Commission found that a material change occurred in the diamond
company’s business when it was legally unable to access its
mining properties in order to extract diamonds.
 In Coventree Inc. (Re),29 the Ontario Securities Commission
found that the inability of a capital markets company to continue
to issue commercial paper through its conduits, which was a primary source of its revenue and a crucial aspect of its business, was
25 Silver v. Imax Corp.,  O.J. No. 5573, 66 B.L.R. (4th) 222 (S.C.J.), at
paras. 7, 208 and 351.
26 Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund (Trustees of) v.
Celestica Inc., supra.
28 2008 LNONOSC 631, 31 O.S.C.B. 8337.
29 2011 LNONOSC 757, 34 O.S.C.B. 10209.