evidence of both parties, but the court must take into account that
the leave motion involves merely a paper record and that the
statutory leave test sets a low evidentiary threshold.43
 In the leave test, “good faith” has been interpreted to mean
that the plaintiff has brought his or her action in the honest belief
that he or she has an arguable claim, for reasons that are
consistent with the purpose behind the statutory remedy, not for
an oblique or collateral purpose, and with the genuine intention
and capacity to prosecute the claim if leave is granted.44
 On the second branch of the leave test, the test is that
leave should not be granted if having considered all the evidence
and having regard to the limitations of the motions process, the
plaintiff’s case is so weak or has been so successfully rebutted by
the defendant that it has no reasonable possibility of success.45
E. Discussion and Analysis
1. The flaw in Mr. Paniccia’s statutory cause of action
 As noted above, each alleged misrepresentation or failure to
disclose a material fact is a discrete misrepresentation claim for the
purpose of the leave requirement under the Ontario Securities Act.
In the case at bar, five misrepresentations can be identified, namely,
(1) the SEC subpoena misrepresentation; (2) the special committee
about internal controls misrepresentation; (3) the EBITDA misrepresentation; (4) Mr. Nadal’s compensation misrepresentation;
and (5) the segments misrepresentation.
 In the case at bar, there is no dispute that Mr. Paniccia
satisfies the “good faith” branch of the leave test for each of the
five misrepresentations. In the immediate case, the contest over
leave is about whether having considered all the evidence and
having regard to the limitations of the motions process, Mr.
Paniccia’s case is so weak or has been so successfully rebutted by
the defendant that it has no reasonable possibility of success.
43 Mask v. Silvercorp Metals Inc., supra (C.A.), affg (S.C.J.); Musicians’ Pension
Fund of Canada (Trustees of) v. Kinross Gold Corp., supra; Green v. CIBC, supra.
44 Silver v. Imax Corp., supra (S.C.J.), at para. 308, leave to appeal refused
(2011), 105 O.R. (3d) 212,  O.J. No. 656 (Div. Ct.).
45 Mask v. Silvercorp Metals Inc., supra (C.A.), affg supra (S.C.J.); Swisscanto
Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Ltd., supra; Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources
Ltd.,  O.J. No. 5758, 2015 ONSC 5948 (S.C.J.), vard supra (C.A.); Coffin v.
Atlantic Power Corp. (2015), 127 O.R. (3d) 199,  O.J. No. 3927, 2015
ONSC 3686 (S.C.J.); Goldsmith v. National Bank of Canada, supra (S.C.J.),
affd supra (C.A.).