Consequently, the issue of the duty to disclose is not before the
 Further, Colt acknowledged, for the purposes of the
motion, that there was a reasonable possibility of success that
a court could find it knew, as at the December 21, 2016 date of the
press release, that the Turcolt Investment was unauthorized (as
Perrault was the CEO of the company). Consequently, Colt did
not oppose leave to proceed to plead this misrepresentation
against it under s. 138.3(1) in connection with the December 2016
 Jaffrey did submit that there was no reasonable possibility
of success that a court could find he knew (or deliberately avoided
acquiring knowledge), as at the December 21, 2016 date of the
press release, that the Turcolt Investment was unauthorized.
Consequently, Jaffrey opposed leave to proceed to plead this misrepresentation against him under s. 138.3(1) in connection with
the December 2016 Press Release.
 I first address the applicable law and then apply the law to
the evidence before the court.
1. The applicable law to consider the knowledge
requirement in a non-core document under s. 138.4
 As a non-core document, the December 2016 Press Release
is subject to the additional burden of proof under s. 138.4(1), set
out at para. 52 above, that plaintiff must establish that the person or company knew that the non-core document or public oral
statement contained the misrepresentation, deliberately avoided
acquiring such knowledge, or engaged in gross misconduct in
connection with the release of the document or the making of the
public oral statement that contained the misrepresentation.
[ 81] The Theratechnologies test applies to all aspects of the
s. 138.3 claim, including the burden of proof under s. 138.4(1) for
a non-core document. Consequently, the court’s review of the
“knowledge” requirement cannot become a “mini-trial” or “full
analysis” at the “authorization stage”. Further, [at para. 39]
“evidentiary requirements should not be so onerous as to
essentially replicate the demands of a trial”.
[ 82] Consequently, I consider whether there is a [at para. 39]
“plausible analysis of the applicable legislative provisions, and
some credible evidence in support of the claim”, such that there
“is a reasonable possibility” that Kauf will be able to establish
one or more of the “knowledge” preconditions under s. 138.4(1).
That analysis must be conducted through a “robust” screening of