( v) “[T]he correction must be reasonably capable of revealing to
the market the existence of an untrue statement of material
fact or an omission to state a material fact” (at para. 66);
( vi) “The public correction need not be made by the issuer of the
security and can take any form of message, including state-
ments by the issuer, credit rating agencies, market analysts,
and short-sellers in newspaper articles and internet postings,
even anonymous ones” (at para. 66); and
( vii)“The public correction need not be a mirror-image of the
alleged misrepresentation or a direct admission that a previ-
ous statement is untrue” (at para. 66).
[ 127] In Wong v. Pretium Resources Inc. (2017), 139 O.R. (3d)
353,  O.J. No. 3768, 2017 ONSC 3361 (S.C.J.) (“Wong”),
Belobaba J. granted leave to bring a secondary market misrepresentation claim under s. 138.8(1). The company (Pretium) had
obtained a mineral resource estimate (“MRE”) with respect to its
Brucejack gold mine. The MRE was used for a feasibility study
that concluded that “Brucejack contained economically recoverable
mineral reserves capable of supporting a successful bulk-mining
operation”. However, the feasibility study was dependent on the
validity of the underlying MRE (at para. 6).
[ 128] Pretium hired Strathcona to test and verify the validity of
the MRE (and by extension, the feasibility study). Strathcona
intended to extract and test a 10,000-ton sample and report on
the test results. However, because Pretium had difficulty finding
a custom mill that was available, Strathcona procured a sample
tower to test a portion of the bulk sample before it was shipped
for milling (at paras. 7-9).
 The sample tower test failed to confirm the validity of the
MRE. Strathcona repeatedly urged Pretium’s executive team to
publicly disclose these facts to the market, but Pretium believed
that the sample tower method was flawed and that a full testing
of the entire bulk sample would establish the presence of economically viable gold resources (at paras. 10-15).
[ 130] Strathcona then resigned from the bulk sample program
because Pretium would not disclose that the bulk sample testing
did not confirm the validity of the MRE and feasibility study.
Pretium issued two press releases in relation to the Strathcona
resignation — one announcing the resignation of Strathcona
on October 9, 2013 and the second setting out the reasons for the
resignation in a more detailed press release dated October