Turcolt Investment announced just three weeks earlier. That
“correction” is the “link” to Colt’s failure to disclose that Perrault
made an unauthorized investment, which is the alleged misrepresentation in the case. At the same time, the December 2016 Press
Release failed to disclose that the Turcolt Investment was not
 It may be at trial that the connection between the public
correction and the misrepresentation is found to be tenuous. It is
possible that the loss may not be fully attributed to the unauthorized nature of the investment and may be more attributable
to other factors. However, that issue is to be resolved by the trial
judge. The Defendants are entitled under s. 138.5(3) to lead
evidence that shareholder losses were unrelated to the misrepresentation.
 Contrary to the Defendants’ submission, it is not necessary to rely on the subsequent January 2017 Press Release to
establish a partial correction in the December 2016 Press Release.
The January 2017 Press Release only stated what Colt and
Jaffery could have stated earlier, if the trial judge finds that they
knew the investment was unauthorized. The subsequent conduct
“shed[s] light on potential or actual behaviour of persons” at the
relevant disclosure time (Sharbern, at para. 60), but is not the
basis upon which the link is made.
 Consequently, as in Swisscanto, the announcement of
Perrault’s departure under negative circumstances, resulting in
Colt reviewing its strategic alternatives, [at para. 73] “when read
in context, can fairly and reasonably be said to be a public correction” of the misrepresentation that the investment was authorized, by disclosing to the reader that Perrault had acted
improperly in some manner, only three weeks after announcing
a major investment by the company.
 I also do not agree with the Defendants that expert or
shareholder evidence is required to determine the market effect
of a press release. There was no evidence before Belobaba J. in
Swisscanto as to the effect on the market of the “passing reference” in the press release.
 The only expert evidence before the court in Swisscanto
related to whether the sell-in method was GAAP complaint, as
BlackBerry had represented that to be the case. BlackBerry relied
on that evidence to submit that it had not made a misrepresentation.
 In the present case, no expert evidence is required to
establish materiality of the “unauthorized investment” misrepresentation issue, as the Defendants acknowledge that it is material
for the purposes of the motion.