immediate case, however, he has failed to do so. Such evidence as
exists stands against material misrepresentations.
 There are no categorical elements to materiality because
materiality is a contextual and fact-specific inquiry, determined on
a case-by-case basis from the perspective of the reasonable investor.
The inquiry involves the application of a legal standard to specific
facts in light of all of the relevant circumstances and the total mix
of information.47 Applying that methodology to the circumstance of
the immediate case it cannot be said that a reasonable investor
would consider any of the alleged misrepresentations as being
material to his or her investment decisions.
 Mr. Paniccia is not assisted by the evidence of Mr. Mintzer.
Mr. Mintzer is qualified to opine from an accountant’s or auditor’s perspective what is a material fact or change from an
accountant’s perspective of preparing or auditing financial statements. However, it is for the court to determine what to an investor is a material fact or a material change under the Securities
Act. This is a legal test.
 As described above, materiality involves the application of
a legal standard (not simply an accounting or auditing standard)
to specific facts, and while depending on the nature of the alleged
misrepresentation, a court may be assisted by understanding
what is material from an auditor’s point of view and what is the
appropriate accounting or auditing standard, just as it might be
assisted by understanding what is material from a geologist’s or
economist’s point of view, ultimately, it is for the court to determine what is objectively important to a reasonable investor in
making his or her investment decisions.
 While each case must be considered on its own merits,
the case law is informative about the methodology of determining
materiality for the purposes of a motion for leave to purse a statutory cause of action under securities statutes.
 In Abdula v. Canadian Solar Inc.,48 Mr. Abdula alleged
that Canadian Solar made three representations in core documents that artificially inflated the company’s share price resulting in damages to shareholders after the truth was revealed. With
respect to the first misrepresentation, which was that Canadian
Solar misrepresented its financial results in reporting revenues,
losses, allowances for advance payments and loss reserves, based
on Canadian Solar’s concession, Justice Taylor granted leave to
47 Sharbern Holding Inc. v. Vancouver Airport Centre Ltd., supra, at paras. 52-
48  O.J. No. 4163, 2014 ONSC 5167 (S.C.J.).